Talk:Linkin Park

Archives
Archive 1 Beginning Archive 2 Earlier Genre Disputes Archive 3 May 2007 – February 2008 Archive 4 February 2008 – December 2008 Archive 5 January 2009 – October 2010 Archive 6 October 2010 – December 2012

LINKIN PARK SALES

Linkin park has sold nearly 65 milion copies worldwide. This is the data:

- Hybrid Theory: 24,000,000

- Reanimation: 3,400,000

- Meteora: 16,000,000

- Live In Texas: 3,300,000

- Collision Course: 4,600,000

- Minutes To Midnight: 8,000,000

- Road To Revolution: 1,000,000

- A Thousand Suns: 2,500,000

- Living Things: 1,300,000 (ongoing)

- EP + Sales of additional minor releases: 500,000

TOTAL LINKIN PARK SALES: 64,600,000 copies worldwild

So I ask that sales are changed and to be put in that Linkin Park has sold nearly 65 million records, thanks. --Voilet92 (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

i tried to discus this above and there was no response !!!!!!!!! --hosam007 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We need a reliable source to verify your calculations. Once we have that we can update the Lead paragraph to reflect the updated figures. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

well, ok the article says the their sales are 50 million even before releasing ATS or LT. so i don't think that make sense to stay that way coz i feel that they're branded with the 50 million copies. so i got a source it's not so updated but i think it objective []

- hybrid theory - 24 million (we all agree)

- meteora - 16 million (there's RS)

- minutes to midnight - 8 million (there's RS)

- a thousand suns - 1,700,000 copies

- living things - at least 750,500 (only by counting the certification) + billboard reports

- Reanimation - 2 million copies

- Collision Course - 5 millions

- Live in Texas - 3,300,000 copies

- Road To Revolution Live At Milton Keynes - 950,000 copies (i think they reached the 1 million)

- Sales of additional minor releases - 500,000 copies (the source above)

so by counting the numbers above they are almost 61,6 million copies, so let's get rid of 50 million copies brand coz it's not fair at all to the band . i hope you consider it

--- hosam007 (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A Thousand Suns was at 1,7 milion copies in DECEMBER 2010 (only three months after its release) and this is the LINK of MediaTraffic http://www.mediatraffic.de/albums-2010.htm

To date A Thousand Suns has sold 2,500,000 copies and MediaTraffic has confirmed it, this is the link: http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=382765481797643&id=299303286810530&ref=notif&notif_t=feed_comment (enter on FaceBook to view it). Reanimation is at 3,400,000 (look at the certifications). TOTAL LINKIN PARK SALES: around 65 milion.--Voilet92 (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

i assumed the least number so no on complain, and edited the both pages to 60 million at least !!!!!!! i think it's OK now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hosam007 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

And where is the source for sales numbers? If no sources, then it's not acceptable. Please don't do your own calculations. --Stryn (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

you guys need to see that most of the ref sources are outdated someone needs to edit the sales figures of all the albums with good sources Hybrid theory has been at 24mn from 4 years doesnt that seem strange? so has Meteora and minutes to midnight. Please correct everythingNihalmhn (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

LINKIN PARK IS ALTERNTAIVE METAL

alternative metal is a genre of akternative rock mixed with metal and thats lp esspically on there new album — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttnugget126589 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Mm.. I believe alternative metal is one of the genres LinkinPark's been most known for it. Meteora, Hybrid Theory, Reanimation & Collision Course! And the band's genre changed into electronic, especially after "A Thousand Suns". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.181.120.135 (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

LINKIN PARK http://www.allmusic.com/album/living-things-mw0002357741

IS SAYS THERE ALTERNTAIVE METAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttnugget126589 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It also says they are pop-metal and heavy metal, and these are actually classified as styles. Pop/Rock is the genre that has been given from that source, and rock is a better generalisation of their music. The1337gamer (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

i know but look at like slipknot slayer and bullet for my valentiine it says every metal band is pop rock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttnugget126589 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I know that, so what you're saying is that the source you provided isn't suitable? The1337gamer (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

no im not saying that but when u click on the artist is shows the actual genres — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttnugget126589 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You can source and add genres to the infobox. However in the lead of the article, the genre should be generalised and rock is the best way to describe them rather than giving different subgenres they have been classified as. The1337gamer (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

just do rap rock 28 of some of their like 30 songs have rap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttnugget126589 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

and most of those are rap metal right? so the gerne is rap metal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttnugget126589 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Musical style and influences

There is a part about Linkin Park influences. I have found a new material. Hed PE frontman Jahred Gomes citated, that him and he's band is one of the influences of LP Info here: http://www.beat.com.au/music/2011/01/24/hed-pe/coming-out-commercial-label-territory-corner-hotel-countless-times-difficult-changes-drastic-change + there is also a line about LP at /wiki/Hed_PE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.243.117 (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hed PE's Front man claim doesn't count as a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.181.120.135 (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 February 2013

Linkin park have sold 65 million copies & above http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linkin_Park_discography . A Thousand Suns has sold 1.7 million copies worldwide http://www.mediatraffic.de/albums-2010.htm Himanshu700 (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Mediatraffic doesn't count sales. It's a points system. --Gbuvn (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to stay up to date? If you're gonna change the picture, at least choose a newer one, not something from 5 years ago. There are a lot of good pictures from their last tour that could be used, and this one from Munich is horrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.178.223.162 (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

14:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)14:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)14:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)14:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)158.81.96.129 (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Mark Wakefield

Does anyone else think it's dumb to have Wakefield listed as a Linkin Park former member, when he was in a seperate band called Xero? Xero and Linkin Park at two seperate bands. Just like Rage Against The Machine wasn't RATM when Chris Cornell joined the group. It was Audioslave. Just an example and fruit for thought. Teresa44 (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think they're not really different band. Just a change of the singer coinciding with a name change. But they have the same music, actually even the same songs (Forgotten, A Place For My Head, Runaway). However, it's an interesting question. Any other opinions about this? --Gbuvn (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

i think it's OK to keep him on the former members list, they are the same band just with changing the name !! just a former member of the group. --hosam007 (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that he should be apart of the lineup. The first time the band name changed because they decided to make changes. Mark was part of Xero and not Hybrid Theory/Linkin Park. A new voice led to a new band. Basically it was a fusion of "Xero's" Band and "Grey Daze's" singer, much like when "LAPD's" band fused with "Sexart's" singer to form "Korn". The only time they simply made a name change was "Hybrid Theory" to "Linkin Park".

158.81.96.129 (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

These are both arguments are valid. Jeff Blue, the music executive/producer who helped structure and promote Linkin Park describes the band's early history on his website. "After developing Xero for two years, and changing the band name to Hybrid Theory, Blue met Chester Bennington, a singer from Arizona. Blue arranged for Bennington to become a member of the band, which later changed its name to Linkin Park."[4] I am leaning towards keeping Wakefield as a member of Linkin Park given Blue's comments and the fact that many of Xero's songs ended up eventually becoming LP songs. In the Album booklet for Hybrid Theory, Wakefield is credited for writing "Forgotten", "place for my Head" and "Runaway". --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Genre

I think Linkin Park should also be labeled as "rap metal", considering the fact that their earlier music was a mixture of rap and metal. Also, the Wiki pages for Hybrid Theory and Meteora have the albums labeled as "rap metal" as well. 3:40 March 29, 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.234.134 (talk)

That's called Nu Metal. And they were indeed that genre. Teresa44 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually "rap metal" and "nu metal" are seperate genres. Nu metal is a derivative of rap metal. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That's only their first two albums, it doesn't reflect their current work, and Hybrid Theory and Meteora were mainly nu metal/alternative albums anyway. I call the big one bitey 21:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone has added a whole load of genre's, including techno!? There needs to be an agreement of what genre's should be in the info box. I believe it should include all the genre's they have been in the past and what they are seen as now. - SilentDan297 15:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilentDan297 (talk • contribs)

Linkin Park is NOT nu metal. Saying Linkin Park is nu metal is putting them in the same genre as bands like Korn, Slipknot, Disturbed, System of a Down, Nonpoint, Mudvayne, etc which they are NOTHING like. Read the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of the Nu Metal Characteristics. --Jimv1983 (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There first 2 albums are classed as Nu metal, in fact Hybrid Theory is classed as the worlds best selling Nu metal album (http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/8981/Linkin-Park-Hybrid-Theory). Their Minutes to Midnight is noted for the bands departure of the Nu metal genre. - (SilentDan297) (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the paragraph you were referring to, contains a sample of Crawling off Hybrid Theory. --Gbuvn (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm kinda agree. Some of the songs of the first few albums were rap-metal but rap-rock is just fine, Since it has been continued up to now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.181.120.135 (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Redundant Statement

"Both Hybrid Theory and Meteora combine the alternative metal, nu metal, and rap rock sound with influences and elements from hip hop, alternative rock, and electronica"

That sentence makes no sense, you cannot "combine" alternative metal with alternative rock, since alternative metal is a derivative of alternative rock, and basically the same thing except with heavier guitars. I call the big one bitey 21:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, alternative rock and alternative metal do have similarities, but it's not like alternative metal is the derivative of alternative rock. So they can be combined.[it's like saying that alternative hiphop is a derivative of alternative rock] 2.181.120.135 (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Live in Texas

Yes, I know the CD version of Live in Texas only contains the 12 of the 17 tracks from the DVD. And the other 5 are found on LPU3. But are the two CDs (Live in Texas CD and LPU3 CD) mixed the same so they can fit together or are they mixed differently? --144.137.69.115 (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No, they are mixed differently... --SuperVirtual (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 June 2013

ImabeeOg (talk) Legacy

Though Linkin Park's first two albums were the only to really be successful. Minutes To Midnight A Thousand Suns & Living Things all have the same kind of style that Hybrid Theory & Meteora had. Linkin Park became one of the most successful bands of the 2000's and may be considered THE greatest band of the 2000's period.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not a fansite. --ElHef (Meep?) 16:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Genre 2

Per Template: Infobox musical artist the genre in the infobox should be generalized and limited, it should not include every single genre they have been mentioned to contain elements of, or released an album with an influence of a certain genre. It should be the genres the band is most known for, having five genres in the infobox just makes it look cluttered, and I am this close to just changing to Rock, because that is what Template: Infobox musical artist says it should be. There are many genres mentioned in the musical style section, and the insignificant ones can stay there not in the infobox. The disruptive editing needs to stop here. STATic message me! 15:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It's no wonder the Template:Infobox musical artist project almost voted to have the 'genre' line removed from info boxes :). I agree with STATic - It's best to keep things simple rather than keep listing various sub-genres. 'Alternative rock, nu metal, rap rock' are broad enough and cover most of what the band is well known for. Alternatively, I am not sure if it's kosher, but maybe we could add a link to the Linkin Park#Musical style and influences section, which discusses their use of hip-hop and electronica. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I do not usually edit rock band articles but since I started I realize how bad the field is abused. Five or six genres is just overkill, and is not summarizing anything. Those three basically summarize what genres the band is known for throughout their career. I forget where it says it, but we are not supposed to link to other sections of the article in the infobox, because we have the table of contents right there and it would just clutter up the infobox. Good suggestion though! STATic message me! 02:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I consider them to be more of a nu metal, rap metal, alternative rock type of genre. They have electronic influences in their more recent works. TomUSA 19:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Mm.. I believe alternative metal is one of the genres LinkinPark's been most known for it. Meteora, Hybrid Theory, Reanimation & Collision Course! And the band's genre changed into electronic, especially after "A Thousand Suns" 2.181.120.135 (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Associated Acts?

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. To my recollection, Bennington is (or was) the only full-time member of Grey Daze and Dead By Sunrise from Linkin Park. I think Dave Farrell was the only member of ‘Tasty Snax’ that also played in Linkin Park. Thoughts? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitely should be removed if the groups only have one full-time member in common. The section is supposed to be limited to a very significant few. STATic message me! 03:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

STATic, I think we should add Steve Aoki there, because they collaborated for a single, they released a EP together, Steve also played with the band as a DJ when Joe was busy for the post production of his movie and now according to Billboard Linkin Park will be collaborating with Steve again for a song named Horizons which would be coming out in 2015. Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 08:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC

Golu, this is a good point, but I cannot find a reliable source that confirms he actually stepped in for Joe Hahn or confirms the actual number of live shows he played with the band. We cannot base it exclusively on the fact we made a few singles for them because a lot of other acts have. Busta Tymes and The X-Ecutioners. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Recharged and future projects (2013–present)

Should Recharged be a headline for the subsection and separated from Living Things? I think the paragraph about Recharged should be under Living Things, just as Reanimation is under Hybrid Theory. --JDC808 ♫ 20:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that now it's good to have an own section for Recharged as it is now. But later, when they're working with their next studio album, we can move this Recharged section under Living Things section. --Stryn (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I think eventually it will be merged with Living Things section. It's news now, so it's ok if it's in the last section as the news always are.31.59.63.124 (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Genres again

I don't know if anyone still searches for sources on Alt metal? If so, you can check the "Styles and influences" section or the most common sites: Allmusic, Pop matters, IGN and also Startribute. In fact, alt metal is one of the most sourced genres on Linkin Park! So "Nu metal" and "Alt metal" for "early" linkin park, if we are agreeing on the major genre shift in LP's history.
Rap rock is a permanent genre for LP and I don't think anybody argues with that. Alternative rock also somehow passes this.
Now about the recent albums, more specifically A Thousand Suns and Living Things, with Minutes to midnight in No Man's Land. Alternative rock is one of the most sourced genres (I won't bother bringing them up cuz alt rock is already in the genre section and no one is against it). The controversial genre is electronic rock (or most arguably industrial). It's the same story though. The sources are numerous, Solino_{the Wolf} 00:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, not all those sources are reliable sources see WP:IRS for more information. Along with the majority of them do not refer to the band as "Linkin Park the electronic rock band" or "Linkin Park the alternative metal band", which is what would be required to be listed. Also most of the references are to single albums, this article is about the band in whole, just because one album has electronic elements, does not make it due weight to include in the infobox. Second of all, see Template: Infobox musical artist, the genre is to be generalized, not list every single genre the band has been known to play, as the infobox is a SUMMARY of the article, not listing every single little thing. "Aim for generality ie. Hip hop not East coast hip hop", that immediately kicks alt metal off, and electronic rock is a very new element. A search of "electronic rock band linkin park" in google turns up nothing using that phrase, because it is not what they are known for making it WP:UNDUE weight, the same as what listing alt metal would be. STATic message me! 02:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I highly disagree. 7 out of 10 articles about linkin park's last two albums have mentioned the albums to be electronic rock. And that's not a single album, that's 2 albums that is more than 4 last years of this band. The same is with alternative metal; even worse. You can hardly find ANY RS about linkin park's first 5 years, not mentioning them as a part of 2000s alternative metal movement. About the infobox, again, I know what the infobox is and I just don't see how nu metal is more generalized than alt metal. And about the RS, all the sources I mentioned were the sources used to write the whole Linkin Park article, so we'd have to remove a lot of sentences from the article if they do not pas WP:RS. Also many of them are the most used reliable sources for music articles in wikipedia, like IGN, Pop matters and allmusic. I don't know what you're after, yes maybe you can't find "LINKIN PARK THE ELECTRONIC ROCK BAND" anywhere but I think we all know "really good alternative rock fused with electronic rock" or "Linkin Park's shift in direction towards a more electronic rock sound" will do! Anyways, I'm looking for other comments! Solino_{the Wolf} 10:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly you misread my comment again, I said not all of them are reliable sources, and btw the AllMusic sidebar cannot be used for genres. Also again, having electronic rock influences in two albums does not make them an "Electronic Rock band". Also there may not be an abundance of sources from that time, but it would not take more then five seconds to find sources refering to them as a rap-rock or alt rock band, which are their main genres (that is why they are the ones to be listed in the infobox). We have a "musical style and influences" section for a reason. STATic message me! 14:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

sry to interrupt but I believe that LP used to be I repeat USED TO BE altmetal! I mean Hybrid Theory & meteora!! you cant say no to that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.36.249 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, you repeat yourself again and again. As I said before, alt metal for band's first five or six years is even more sourced than rap rock and definitely more than alt rock. And I think you already know that I used revies on Allmusic not the side-bar. The sources are more than enough. The only thing is the matter of consensus. If we don't get enough comments from other wikipedians soon, I'll go for an RfC cuz I'm positive alt. metal and even electronic are gonna pass consensus as well.Solino_{the Wolf} 23:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say roughly 40% of the band’s material incorporates electronic sounds elements. Some of the references brought up clearly label the band as ‘electric rock’: , while others will just describe their sound as 'electric' or 'electronic'. It’s safe to say the band is transitioning to the genre, but I am not sure how to properly address this issue in the infobox. My suggestion would be to go for a RFC so we can get more opinions in this discussion. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  03:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually in that source it labels that single album "Alt rock/electronic rock," not "Linkin Park the electronic rock band." The only reason I want to hold back on listing it in the infobox, is that it is a fairly new development, so is it significant enough to list in the infobox? We do not need to apply undue weight and anything over three genres in the infobox is overkill and ruins the point of an infobox, so something would have to be removed. This is why we have musical style and influences section. If we were going to remain limiting it to three, rap-rock would obviously be one, but we would need to decide what the other one or two most significant genres to their entire career are. When I say that, I am talking about sources just discussing the band and what genre(s) they casually refer to them as, not reviews of single albums where they say they have influences of this, or influences of that. STATic message me! 04:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I just don't get why you insist we keep it limited to three genres. As I said before in your own talk page, when a band has a major shift in music direction, it's acceptable and logical to have multiple genres in the infobox. Like The Gathering or Anathema. I think 5 is not too much for Linkin Park, especially if we divide em with "(early)" and "(recent)", something customary for the infobox genre section in some other bands' infoboxes. I think this will do:

Alternative metal, nu metal (early)

Rap rock, alternative rock

Electronic rock (recent)

Solino_{the Wolf} 10:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Five is way too much. Especially with the "early" "recent" mess you did there, and in the article. If that is done in any article it should immediatly be removed. If a genre is significant enough for the infobox then the style should be apart of them for the entire career. You did not label "Rap rock" or "alt rock", so I am now assuming you agree with me, that those are the most significant genres throughout their career. So in that case only they should be listed, everything else is at home in the "musical style and influences" section. STATic message me! 15:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok first of all it's not for you to decide if five is way too much or not, it's also not for you to decide if it's a mess or not or if other pages with this format should or shouldn't be changed! Of course you have your one vote for the consensus, though. I think it's perfectly logical that when a band changes direction and changes the genre, the new genre is as significant as the old one. For example if they stop doing rap rock and just do electronic rock in other albums, how can you choose the significance of the genre then?? I think you're completely misled by your own sense of judgment and taste in "how the infobox should be" and "what genres are considered significant and generalized". Anyways, both of us told our points of views, to reach a consensus, others should also participate in the discussion cause me and you are not gonna get anywhere with this, we're just repeating ourselves. So far, some un-registered user had a vote for alt metal and StarScream was agreeing with electronic rock. I hope more registered users join the discussion so we could reach a conclusion.Solino_{the Wolf} 17:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not need to judge it, it is a fact it looked like a complete mess, that is the reason I reverted you in the first place. No duh I only have one vote, I never implied my opinion madder more, but at least mine is logical and backed by the guidelines at Template: Infobox musical artist. Rap-rock would still be listed even if they never kicked Mike out, and never did it again, due to the significance it has had on their entire careers. StarScream did not agree with electronic rock being listed, do not put words in their mouth to try to push your POV. I also said I would agree with electronic rock if there are ANY reliable sources that call LP an "electronic rock band", not just reviews of recent albums saying they have electrorock vibes or influences. But the more I think about it we need to decide that between alt rock, nu-metal, or alt metal, which one is they are most prominent, because there is no way we are listing all of them like you want. It is overkill and again defeats the point of an infobox, which is to summarize the main points of the article. Anybody else that comments is not going to support listing five genres, I can tell you that right now. STATic message me! 22:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but its obvious how one-sided your sentences are. No everything you think is not a fact, yes of course you think they are facts and of course you think they are logical, but that doesn't make em facts, it's still just one persons opinion. and of course I think it's not a mess AND it doesn't violate any of the guidelines. And I'm sorry to tell you this, but no if the consensus concludes to all those five genres, there's not way you could stop it from happening so think before you say "there is no way we are listing all of them", cuz we just might do that. And yes because almost ALL the sources list electronic rock as the main genre of the last two albums which in fact is the bands last 5 years, electronic rock is a well sourced genre. and for the matter of consensus, yes starscream didn't point out his views as facts like you do, but reading his comment shows he in fact does agree with electronic rock as a sourced genre and has doubts in how it should be brought up to the infobox. and also three others up until now agreeing with either alt metal or electronic rock. We'll see what happens. Of course if the consensus leads to only three genres, or even to the ones already there, I'll still be thoroughly satisfied with the result.Solino_{the Wolf} 23:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Mm.. I believe alternative metal is one of the genres LinkinPark's been most known for it. Meteora, Hybrid Theory, Reanimation & Collision Course! And the band's genre changed into electronic, especially after "A Thousand Suns" 2.181.120.135 (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

They're releasing "Recharge" now. The first single of the album is also electronic. I think electronica is their main genre now.31.59.63.124 (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

However this is a 'Remix' album, not a 'Studio' album, meaning this isn't entirely their work, and the single is featuring Steve Aoki, a renown electronic artists so hence this single being heavily electronic and dub-step influenced. - SilentDan297 talk 13:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

THE REAL GENRES.

--4.255.201.221 (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC) OK. LINKIN PARK WAS AT FISRT NU METAL. THEN THEY WERE ALT. ROCK. THEN ELECRONIC ROCK. RAP ROCK GOES IN THERE TOO. PLEASE CHANGE IT BECAUSE THE ARTICLE IS MISS LEADING AND LEAVES OUT IMPORTANT GENRE INFO. THEY'VE BEEN ELECTRONIC ROCK FOR TWO ALBUMS NOW. AND RECHARGED IS ELECTRONIC ROCK. PLEASE CHANGE IT.--4.255.201.221 (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't write in all caps. For genre changes please add sources. --Gbuvn (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration...

In the main area the line "The band has collaborated with several other artists, most notably with rapper Jay-Z in their mashup EP Collision Course," is pretty outdated. I think it would be very pertinent to mention the Collision Course 3 with Eminem. I'm not sure what the author of that line meant by "most notably" but currently Eminem's new album is far more noteworthy than Jay-Z. I don't care to look it up at the moment but I'm pretty sure currently Eminem is destroying Jay-Z in sales and their collaboration with him is important in their career. I guess it really comes down to the "most notably" wording. I feel that to be far too subjective. Mike uptown (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Mike

There has never been an official album called Collision Course 2 or 3. What you mean is obviously a fan-made mashup. --Gbuvn (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Addition of Collage for Band Members Section

There are quite a bit of suggestions on the feedback page asking for a picture that shows all five band members with their names in the caption. Unfortunately, I cannot find a free picture with all the band members in it. I instead found two images on the Wiki Commons that are colleges made of free pictures of the band members:

• File:Linkin park collage.jpeg
• File:Linkin park ekb.png

Alternatively, I could try to make collage using other free images of individual band members. Does anybody have any input? Do you think this is worth adding? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

 StarScream1007 , well I think we should add any one of them, because the one present on the page is of 2010. I think there should be collage of any 2014-13 live pictures. What do you think?Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 08:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

New Single released.

Linkin Park has collaborated with MC Rakim and has released their new single "Guilty All The Same", the debut track of its forthcoming untitled album. news.radio.com/2014/03/05/linkin-park-guilty-all-the-same-interview — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droidbreath (talk • contribs) 06:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2014

Linkin Parks 6th Studio Album has been teased in the preview video for Guilty All The Same as being called The Hunting Party and a release date also on the notepad dating 6th of June 2014 as a possible release date 58.96.66.13 (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kap 7 (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2014

Genre needs to be changed. They are far too changed than before. So it needs to be changed to Electronic rock 27.114.135.191 (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2014

History > The Hunting Party (2013–present): Please add after the sentence "The band's sixth studio album was later revealed to be titled as The Hunting Party, and it is set to be released on June 14, 2014" this: "Paige Hamilton of Helmet and another Daron Malakian of System of a Down will be feature on the album. SOURCE: http://x959fm.com/news/articles/2014/apr/07/mike-shinoda-says-new-linkin-park-album-will-be-loud-and-aggressive/ Agarmo (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Added content about Malakian and Hamilton per source. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Image

I think there should be another image of the band for the article. The one included now is too old. Please give your suggestions. Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 09:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2014

Add "industrial rock into genre blog.ourvinyl.tv/linkin-park-living-things-review 86.135.200.225 (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Also WP:RS are also needed. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 18:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Associated Acts again!

Man why are these people adding Fort Minor and DBS again?Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 08:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The decision to omit Fort Minor, Busta Rhymes, and Stone Temple Pilots came from Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts, which states the following uses of this field should be avoided:

• Association of groups with members' solo careers (Stone Temple Pilots, Fort Minor)
• Groups with only one member in common (Stone Temple Pilots, Fort Minor)
• Association of producers, managers, etc.
• One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song (Busta Rhymes)
• Groups that are merely similar

--  StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

So now you are right! But I guess Steve Aoki should be added in this because, he collaborated with the band for a single, and they had an EP together, as well as he replaced Joe, in live concerts for a month because he was busy for the post-production of his movie. Now according to billboard they will again collaborate for a song named as Horizons which would be included in the sequel of the album Neon Future I. What do you think? Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 17:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I: agree that Aoki should be listed as an associated act. He's collaborated with the band on separate occasions. Can we find a reliable source to confirm he was a toured with Linkin Park while Hahn was away? I feel this would help solidify for sure in this field., I found this source, but it's not official (and it was posted on April 1st). It claims that Aoki played them on a June 10th Milan show, but a setlist I found online shows that Joe Hahn was still with them.[5][6] Thoughts? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to find some sources so that we could get this. And the post of 1st april was the one which made me take this topic up! I'll see if I can get some more to support this. Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 11:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@user:StarScream1007 I couldn't find any sources for the replacement. I'm really sorry, but can we still add Aoki on the basis of multiple times collaboration?Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 13:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• If sources matter (I think they do) then Allmusic lists the following associated acts: Dead by Sunrise, Relative Degree, Fort Minor, Xero. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Binksternet, I feel it comes down to what criteria does Allmusic use to consider another band an 'associated act'? I do not think it is the same criteria we are supposed to use in the Infobox Template. Allmusic cites Xero (not to be confused with Xero (band)) as an associated act, but Xero was not a separate band. Xero was merely Linkin Park's old name before they were called Hybrid Theory.From a Rolling Stones Interview transcript. I am not saying Allmusic is a bad or unreliable source, but we should not automatically defer to it for Associated Acts. We presently do not automatically defer to it for genre information either. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:Golu7276, I feel somewhat confident in adding Aoki to the field based on the fact they have worked together on to create two separate singles. The Billboard article you referred to earlier indicates that they had been working on material together for 6 months. They have also performed live together as a single collaboration (not as 2 acts with 2 setlists) on a few separate occasions: [7][8][9]. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

So, I think the conclusion is Aoki should be added! Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 05:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that only Mike Shinoda was involved with Fort Minor. Brad Delson did the A&R for the Rising Tied, and Joe Hahn appeared on the track "Slip out the Back". (Just saying) In this respect, Mr Hahn was arguably as involved in FM, as Steve Aoki is with LP.Falseinfinity (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a good point. Shinoda is (or was) technically the only full-time member of Fort Minor, but he has collaborated with several other artists. On The Rising Tied, "Slip Out the Back" was the only track that credited Joe Hahn. He has made other promotional remix tracks for their fan club as well. Delson's direct association to the project comes from being owner of Fort Minor's label, Machine Shop Records. Fort Minor is a grey area. If the project was more active, I'm sure Bennington and the other LP members would be more involved. Until then, I do not feel that confident in adding it to the list. Aoki has at least worked directly with Linkin Park on 2 occasions and performed with them live on more. That's my interpretation. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Band members and roles

Mike Shinoda is inaccurately represented in the band members section. His vocals, singing or rapping, appear in a large portion of Linkin Park's songs, yet all that is mentioned in that regard are backing vocals. When I tried to fix this, I was reverted without a real explanation, and I'd either like it fixed without a revert, or I would like to know why it was reverted. Also, the timeline portrays him solely as a rhythm guitarist, completely ignoring his keyboards and vocals. CuboneKing (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey there – sorry if I caused any confusion. Don't take it personally. The reason why I reverted the edit before is because I was trying to figure out a better way to represent the members' roles in the band. I think that the best way to represent this is to put Shinoda as "vocals (to show that he is the co-vocalist, and also represents his rapping), rhythm guitar, keyboard, piano". This means that I'll take out the backing vocals, because if he is the co-vocalist, then he shouldn't be listed as backing vocals. Also, with the timeline, I had to simplify it so that everything could fit into the legend, and because his other instruments were mentioned next to his name, they weren't being ignored entirely. I'll edit it so that his vocals are included, but because he isn't the only member of the band who plays keyboard, I don't think it should be represented in the timeline. So if you'd like it "fixed", then that's how I'm going to do it. Again, sorry if I caused any confusion. Regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The band members were originally listed by the year they joined Linkin Park and then alphabetically. This was unofficially agreed upon to end editing warring in a time when editors kept randomly shuffling around band members. If the official and standard format is to list them by instrument/role, then I feel we should go forward with that option. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Most high-profile bands (especially ones that have a lot of members and/or instruments) would have their band members listed to reflect the the order shown in the timeline, so that they are easier to identify. It wouldn't be a "random shuffling" of the members, because it is a specific order that has relevance. The way that R2me2 has formatted that entire section of the article isn't the "correct formatting", because it is the only article that has this "correct formatting". The way that the instrumentation is shown in the timeline doesn't have to be exactly perfect; nearly all timelines are simpler than that. Unless I see that other articles are being edited in this "correct formatting", then I think that it should be edited so that it reflects the other 15 or so band articles that I edit in this manner, that also reflect other articles: members are in order of instrument, and the timelines are simple and use a similar pattern of colours. 4TheWynne (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

4TheWynne, I feel your timeline is easier to read and follow. However, is there an official guideline that states the band members should be organized by instruments? There are a lot of other articles (of varying rating and quality) that list them alphabetically or by the year they joined. Thanks, --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Band members/timeline

All right, let me start a new one for this. I've already provided an explanation in the previous section as to why I believe it's better to have the band members/timeline the way I've done it, and why I'd like my edits to stand. So because, as has been stated, there is no guideline as to how this should appear, I'd like to see what you guys think. Here are most of the band articles whose band members and/or timeline sections are my work:

• Aerosmith
• Paramore
• The Killers
• DragonForce
• Prototype
• Fall Out Boy
• Red Hot Chili Peppers
• Foo Fighters
• Rise Against
• Machine Head
• Slipknot
• Metallica
• Stone Temple Pilots

All of these articles have had these sections fully or mostly edited by me (Metallica and Slipknot are timelines only; still working on Slipknot). I know most of them might not be classified as good articles, or need work, but that's irrelevant. I hope you guys understand and see my point of view. With regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a question about the Timeline. Brad Delson is shown to have played keyboard for the band through their entire existence. To my understanding, he has only played guitar and bass (from 1998 to 2002) and contributed backing vocals. The Hybrid Theory booklet only credits him for guitar, bass, and backing vocals. Thanks, --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  15:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I still need to perfect the lists, but that's already in the timeline. Maybe you were referring to how he was represented in the "Current members" list? 4TheWynne (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Presently Delson is credited for "Keyboard" under the Current Members list. I do not believe he has ever played the keyboard on an album for the band. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Mike Shinoda: Programming, Sampling

I know it's really hard to put down all the contributions that Mike does in the band, but I think he should also be credited for programming and turntables, if I am not wrong he was credited on at least the first two albums for programming/samples. TheInterframe (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Shinoda was directly credited with Sampling in the booklets that accompanied that Hybrid Theory and Meteroa. He should get some credit on the timeline for those contributions. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Redwd

The use of {{Redwd}} to generate Wikidata links is described here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliving Things and Viscera

Should the fanmade remix albums Reliving Things and Viscera be on this page?

http://wiki.lpassociation.com/index.php?title=Viscera http://wiki.lpassociation.com/index.php?title=Reliving_Things

Lacon432 (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Not in this article.There are already a lot of fan-made remixes out there. It might be worth adding to the Living Things (Linkin Park album) article if there are reliable sources to assert the fan remixes' notability, like critical commentary and reception from reliable sources. I'm reluctant to endorse its inclusion since it's not something officially endorsed or green-lit by the band. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  14:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

A touched-up version of Viscera was recently released as an officially sponsored download for Linkin Park Underground members. Is it worth including now? Kitsunelaine (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering the section's only meant to be for (original versions of) studio albums only, I don't see why it has to be there. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

New Fort Minor

Should a mention to the new Fort Minor be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potsmoker88 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Fort Minor had its own article. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Linkin Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150705045015/http://www.mikeshinoda.com/blog/special_events-recommended_music-in_the_studio-featured-linkin_park_/transformers_2_new_linkin_park_song_and_scoreTransformers to http://www.mikeshinoda.com/blog/special_events-recommended_music-in_the_studio-featured-linkin_park_/transformers_2_new_linkin_park_song_and_scoreTransformers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

WHY CANT I EDIT THIS PAGE?

I wish to add the http link (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Bourdon) to the instances of "Rob Bourdon". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalenix (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In regards to why you can't edit the page, the article has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it – because you appear to be a new user, you're unable to edit the page. However, you don't need to add this link to Bourdon's name anyway, because that's what wikilinks are for. But Bourdon doesn't have his own Wikipedia article, so I wouldn't bother trying. Hope that helps. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference Link Formatted Incorrectly

In the "Early Years" section, second paragraph, just passed middle, there is a reference link that is supposed to be in the [18] link, which it is, but it is also in the text, with </ref> after it. I am assuming that it is just the person double did the link and put </ref> at both of the ends, but didn't put a second <~ref> in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.135.166 (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: Timeline messed up

There are a bunch of errors being spewed by the timeline section. Line 5 of the timeline is using a "current date" tag and is in d/m/y format when it needs to be m/d/y.

Timeline generation failed: 5 errors found
Line 5: Period = from:01/01/1996 till:14/11/2015

- Period attribute 'till' invalid.

Date does not conform to specified DateFormat 'mm/dd/yyyy'.

Line 8: ScaleMajor = increment:2 start:1996

- Scale attribute 'start' invalid.

Date '01/01/1996' not within range as specified by command Period.

Line 9: ScaleMinor = increment:1 start:1997

- Scale attribute 'start' invalid.

Date '01/01/1997' not within range as specified by command Period.

Line 20: at:10/24/2000 color:black layer:back

- LineData invalid. No (valid) command 'Period' specified in previous lines.

Line 34: PlotData =

- PlotData invalid. No (valid) command 'Period' specified in previous lines.

173.2.159.119 (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that – apologies for not seeing the error myself. Thanks for pointing it out! 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Beyonce

please change ((Beyonce)) to ((Beyoncé))