Linkin Park has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 10, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 20, 2007 Good article nominee Listed January 7, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Rock music Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Musicians This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance). Linkin Park Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linkin Park, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linkin Park on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Linkin ParkWikipedia:WikiProject Linkin ParkTemplate:WikiProject Linkin ParkLinkin Park Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Metal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal

I noticed Fort Minor was added a spin off band in the Infobox of this article. I believe it's more of a side project than spin-off. The only main member of the project in Mike Shinoda. Joe Hahn from Linkin Park also appears in Fort Minor, but on one track. I'd be more inclined to consider them a spinoff if they had more Linkin Park band members in the project, akin to Zwan or Jefferson Starship. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point, but I feel like I see it done wrong so frequently that it's difficult to identify when it is appropriate... Sergecross73 msg me 00:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary invented criteria about numbers of band members is useless. Ultimately, we're gonna need reliable sources explicitly describing these acts as spin-offs, or else it's just one editor's subjective opinion against another, which are exercises in original research. Left guide (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's kind of what they're getting at though - you'd probably be hard pressed to find reliable sources that describe essentially a side project as a "spinoff". Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to May 2022, Infobox Musician would use the "Associated Acts" parameter, which actually had clear criteria/documentation in the template that dictated what bands were considered "associated acts", ie the number of shared members, joint-albums, or multiple collaborations.[1] This was was all changed in May 2022 after a discussion that resulted in the associated acts parameter being removed and replaced with spin offs/spin offs of.[2] Unlike the Associated Acts parameter, no formal documentation or criteria was ever created to determine what is actually considered a spinoff. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with the removal of the 'associated acts' parameter since that term doesn't seem widely-used by reliable sources; it opens the door to coatracking and needless disputes as evidenced by the template talk RfC you linked. For example, I Google-searched for sources directly stating that Jay-Z is an "associated act" of Linkin Park, and I could not find any. So how would that be handled for less black-and-white situations? Even if there's a local "consensus" about its requirements at the template talk, such requirements are still rooted in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH since it's a vague subjective term. "Side project" and "spin-off" seem to be widely-used by reliable sources, so those make for appropriate infobox parameters. We don't need formal documentation or criteria for spin-offs because like virtually everything else on Wikipedia, reliable sources are what determine what is actually considered a spin-off. Left guide (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this count as a reliable source? The end of the 9th paragraph says Matranga also contributed to tracks for the Deftones and Linkin Park hip-hop spinoff, Fort Minor. The publication looks like an independent local magazine, with the bottom of this page showing an editorial staff. As for Dead by Sunrise, I found this from The Telegraph which is paywalled, but shows the following quote on Google preview: Dead By Sunrise. A spin-off project that operated alongside Linkin Park, Dead By Sunrise was formed by Bennington in 2005 as a harder, more ... Are these sources reliable? Left guide (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC) pinging involved editors @Дисмод, GaterJuv, Bowling is life, Sergecross73, and StarScream1007:[reply]

@Left guide: Yeah those look like reliable sources. Bowling is life (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I still don't think it's a particularly common sentiment...but technically it seems like those sources would probably suffice. Sergecross73 msg me 22:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Serge, these meet the criteria for WP:RS, but I don't think it's a popular opinion that Dead by Sunrise or Fort Minor are spin offs on Linkin Park. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia simply follows what reliable sources say, not common sentiment or popular opinion. Left guide (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily true. WP:UNDUE says articles should not focus on uncommon opinions or aspects of a topic compared to those that are more popular or well-supported. A further quote for the section, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." I know undue weight is geared towards removing fringe theories or unpopular beliefs, and does not necessarily apply to infobox templates. Can we find more reliable sources that say Dead by Sunrise and Fort Minor are spin-offs? Thanks, --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  14:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no, not quite - that's really only part of it. Reliable sources are merely the bare minimum to be considered for inclusion. We're still not required or compelled to include every single thing there's a source for. Things like WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE could still apply here, and things like WP:NOT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, while not relevant here, can apply in other situations. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you make very valid points; I hadn't thought of this issue from the due weight angle. It's admittedly a bit difficult to find additional reliable sources that describe these acts as spin-offs, so maybe it's not a mainstream view. Technically it would satisfy WP:V and WP:RS which there seems to be agreement on here, but not necessarily WP:NPOV policy. On that note, I'm going to remove the remnants from the infobox. I appreciate the ongoing input. Left guide (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linkin Park is an American nu-metal band from Agoura Hills, California. 2409:40E0:48:5CE:ACA1:6DF9:FB1:9299 (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember very clearly reading an interview in a magazine that Mike said the name was chosen because, from their experience touring in years past, that almost every city or county they visited had a Lincoln Park of their own. According to Mike, their thinking was that people would think they were a local band and attend their shows. That's not to discredit the current description on the Wiki; it may very well be a combination of both, but I was obsessed with the band and remember that one fact very clearly from that interview. 73.56.238.183 (talk) 08:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, we'd need to find a source before we could consider it for inclusion anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 11:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Folks in the early 2000s assumed Linkin Park was a local band because "Lincoln Park" is a common name for parks or neighborhoods in cities. While the band acknowledged this misconception, they never claimed it was the origin on the band name.[3][4] --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  11:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That actually makes a lot more sense too. Sergecross73 msg me 12:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some sort of explanation about how this content improves the article in a manner that is understandable and accessible for the average reader? It looks like it's the subject of an ongoing edit war so I'm choosing to tag and discuss to reach consensus rather than jump in with removal. Pinging those involved and some of the regulars. @StarScream1007, Sergecross73, Bowling is life, U-Mos, and 4TheWynne: Left guide (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an edit war or the reason for the tag you added to the article. Please can you explain further? U-Mos (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The material lacks context. For example, what is the purpose of the supposed "countdown"? What exactly is this "text" that's glitching, and how is that important or relevant to the topic of this article? If there aren't reliable sources that put the events into context, in my opinion it should be removed from the article. Left guide (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's all reliably sourced (except a detail I've just removed). The countdown didn't lead to anything, so there's no further context to give. I don't see any issue. U-Mos (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any sense, but I'd blame the band and their marketing for that, not whoever wrote it. They just transcribed what happened - an unexplained countdown that lead to nothing, followed by another vague announcement. I imagine by the time they announce whatever it is that they're doing on September 5th, it can be trimmed back to something like "After a cryptic countdown campaign, the band announced _____". Sergecross73 msg me 13:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree it could be a little more cohesive and trimmed depending on what is announced on 9/5 as Serge suggested. I also found a RS from Forbes to confirm the timer did stop at 9:05 to tease the 9/5 announcement.[5] I'll be honest and say I thought the band was trolling fans when the timer started ticking up again on August 24. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  14:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide and @U-Mos - I trimmed back the section to include the relevant parts. It is a teaser for the band's new album "From Zero". If there's any ambiguity or anything important left out, please feel free to update the section. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change Rob Bourdon to Colin Brittain under current members as he is the new drummer announced also as of September 5th 2024 2600:1700:91D0:D100:5E9:7CD3:E834:8389 (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ⸺(Random)staplers 23:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ive noticed that Colin Brittain has been bluelinked - the Colin Brittain that the link directs to is not related to nor affiliated with Linkin Park. I have removed the links. Nightfury 22:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just googled some photos of the bluelinked Colin Brittain, and he looks a lot like the new guy in their promo photos. Are we positive about this? 184.153.42.65 (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of Colin until now. But according to Variety, "Colin Brittain, a songwriter and producer for G Flip, Illenium and One OK Rock, will also join the group as a drummer." This seems to line up with Colin Brittain. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that was added on the subject's page is not sourced. It is very much a dubious point until confirmed/properly sourced. Any news article can add info like that just because a small page on Wikipedia says that, what makes it slightly worse is the lack of photography of the subject on Wiki. Nightfury 22:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@184.153.42.65, Nightfury, and StarScream1007: We need to be careful to avoid building a WP:FRANKENSTEIN article. Are we 100% sure that all of the sources and material refer to the same person? The Colin Brittain article itself is confusing and seemingly contradictory; the {{about}} hatnote atop that article implies they're two different people but there's content in the article implying it's the same person, which is correct? Left guide (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea. I'm fine with waiting for a formal source from the band. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk   StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After mentioning Chester's death it should also add in a section explaining that "in 2024, Linkin Park introduced Emily Armstrong as the band's new lead singer" I believe it's important to include that since it's also current and relevant. 2603:6011:8000:8A30:5D83:7A2D:3836:71E4 (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2603:6011:8000:8A30:5D83:7A2D:3836:71E4: Emily Armstrong is already mentioned in the introduction. Bowling is life (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn’t added until after I mentioned it. 2603:6011:8000:8A30:3088:9C3F:2B47:3FCE (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication that Alex Feder will be appearing with the band at any point other than yesterday's announcement show, so he doesn't qualify as a touring member of the band. Can we therefore please agree to remove him from the list? He is already mentioned as part of the relevant history section. U-Mos (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone supplies a reliable source saying otherwise, 100% agree. Not every person who ever shows up in stage is necessarily a "touring member". Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Delson confirmed on Instagram he is stepping away from touring and Alex will be taking his place full time. Brad will continue to be apart of the bands studio sessions and work in the background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.59.186.94 (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this has since been addressed. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to cut to the chase: it's probably a touch insensitive to hit an unfamiliar reader with 'suicide' right in the intro. As someone who is aware of what happened, I personally found it jarring. Certainly it needs to be talked about; the intro is likely not the place for it. Can it be replaced with 'death' instead? Cardinalsinistar (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. It'd be one thing if its use was particularly graphic or something, but simple usage of the word is fine. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see it in the intro, only the body text? Regardless, see Wikipedia is not censored. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 14:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I jumped in and removed it as I thought this was uncontroversial. Chester's cause of death is noted in the article so it's not a censorship matter. U-Mos (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the same, there's no encyclopedic reason to remove it from the intro. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed. I've restored it per the WP:BRD process. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest mentions of Chester's suicide remain prominent, especially because an Scientologist (by definition a person who doesn't believe in mental health professionals) has joined the band. Scientologists will flock to this page to tone down mentions of the fact.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't considered that. Doesn't matter anymore, I guess. Seems as though people are invoking a policy about speaking boldly. Cardinalsinistar (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm just going to propose a compromise: I think "death by suicide" would be a slightly more sensitive formula to include in the lead section, as per what Mike Shinoda's wife, Anna, had suggested while trying to process that tragic event. Oltrepier (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this. I think this is an excellent idea. It allows for sensitivity while not shying away from the subject. Cardinalsinistar (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that wording either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@N-Devil: Please don't add "Xero 818" as a known-as again. They never renamed, they just add the number because other bands in the area also called themselves Xero. Brad even says so in the interview you linked. It's not a name change like Hybrid Theory to Linkin Park. This is also evident by later shows just showing the name "Xero" again. It's the same as Slipknot calling themselves "Pygsystem" for two shows. Seelentau (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it WAS a name change to avoid confusion with other bands named "Xero".

It's the same case for the "blink" changed name to "blink-182" to avoid confusion with other band called "Blink".

Brad Delson confirmed this/explained in Kerrang interview: "so we called ourselves Xero 818, like when you can’t get the Gmail account you want, [so] you just put a number… That’s what bands were doing at the time."

And also please see all concert posters, etc from that period - they say "Xero 818" on it, for example: https://linkinpedia.com/wiki/Live:19980620#/media/File:19980620_1.jpg + https://linkinpedia.com/wiki/Live:19981010#/media/File:19981010_1.png

-

Also, they RELEASED a DAT demo tape under "Xero 818" name - after releasing two tapes as just "Xero" - see:

https://i.ibb.co/1qmLNnm/oscbook-dreamer-and-weigt.png

It was confirmed in the "One Step Closer: From Xero to #1: Becoming Linkin Park" book by Jeff Blue, who was the band's music producer.

-

So we have official and legit sources and arguments - and I'm pretty sure that we need to add "Xero 818" - because it was the band's actual name change from just "Xero" - and before changing name to "Hybrid Theory" N-Devil (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to side with Seelentau. There only seemed to play a one or two shows using the Xero 818 moniker. Linkinpedia even lists them as Xero again for a poster promoting their October 10, 1998. Again, Linkinpedia is a fan-edited page that does not meet the RS policy. One Step Closer: From Xero to #1 only once references the band name Xero 818, on page 54, but refers to them as just Xero even after that. If there was a stronger evidence to show they played several shows that meets the reliable sources and user-generated policies, I'd be for adding it back to infobox, timeline, and prose. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you firstly for not immediately reverting again. That said: It wasn't a name change for the sake of changing the name, it was just so they wouldn't get confused with other bands. Brad says so in that quote: "so we called ourselves Xero 818, like when you can’t get the Gmail account you want, [so] you just put a number" - if I can't get seelentau@email.com, adding an "818" doesn't mean that my name isn't seelentau anymore. Furthermore, they used Xero later on as you can see here (December 1998). So unless you're insinuating that they renamed from Xero to Xero 818 and back to Xero, it's not a name change like Hybrid Theory to Linkin Park, but just a temporary addendum that they stopped using after a couple of months. And again: Even assuming this was an actual name change, they were not known by it, similar to Slipknot wasn't known as "Meld", even though that was their first band name. "Xero" and "Hybrid Theory" are pretty well-known names the band has had, and they're the two names the band mentions when they speak about their past. They're also the two names they professionally released something under, whereas that DAT tape is not a finished release, it's an internal copy. It doesn't even have a proper inlay paper or cover. Seelentau (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's particularly worth noting. They have a long successful career as Linkin Park. A very short portion of their career, a different lineup may have used the name, and had virtually no success with it. It's an inconsequential part of their career. Sergecross73 msg me 00:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Handmeanotherbagofthemchips: please don't continue restoring this material to the article as there is clearly no consensus for its inclusion. Instead discuss here, thank you. cc @StarScream1007: Left guide (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StarScream1007: @Left guide: I personally think the allegations against Armstrong and the controversy around them should be mentioned.

First of all, i disagree that they should only be mentioned in her own page and not here, because the controversy is not only about her, but the band in general, considering the implications below.

If the allegations are true (which i really do think they are, considering the overwhelming evidence), then the band has admitted a member who is openly anti-mental health and supportive of sexual abuse (if you're wondering, these are beliefs that scientology members have by default). Now, while there are many artists who have controversial opinions but don't get as much flak, in this particular case it is different: Chester was both sexually abused and committed suicide (double whammy!). You can already see the hypocrisy, and why so many have taken note. This has also appeared to have taken traction on the internet (so not isolated hearsay); thus, notability is established.

As has happened with Armstrong's own article, as well as in other unrelated places (notably Linkin Park's own subreddit), scientology members are already trying to sensor any criticism. So, i suggest we stay vigilant.

As such, i believe the information is more than warranted to stay; the longer it is left out, the longer Armstrong's frankly disgusting actions will evade casual excited fans, and scientology will gain another unfortunate foothold in the entertainment industry.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider supporting the inclusion of this into the article so long as it was written within the context "Cedric Bixler-Zavala criticized Linkin Park for selecting Armstrong due too…" rather than something that is ambiguously worded. I'm honestly going to say we should give it time and see what the reaction is by other reliable sources from journalists and artists, and if they publish critical views against the band for collaboration with Armstrong to determine if it merits inclusion in this article. As it stands now, sources are just republishing Cedric's IG post. This comes down to Due Weight or how much of the criticism target Linkin Park vs Armstrong. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StarScream1007 You kinda have a point. The reaction of major sources is surprisingly lacklustre (puts on tinfoil hat...)

Still, i do believe the inclusion of whatever we have now is more than enough; as i said in my previous comment, at least a mention of this is important, because the marketing team's (cough cough) tactics will be to quickly overrun any mention of Armstorng's wrongdoings before it starts spreading with readers (i think we are already kinda late...). And, while i kinda disagree with your proposed intro, for the sake of expedition, i am willing to include it.

So, do you agree with this? Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For right now, no. The content was restored at least on Armstrong's article. I feel as more media outlets cover it and the story is shared on social media, we'll have a better idea of how this story plays out. I get this is a bad look for Linkin Park potentially, but once more sources and reactions are out there, we can properly determine the weight of what particular sources and claims should be added. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is being covered by reliable sources in direct connection to Armstrong's entry into Linkin Park, so it is unconstructive to remove it. I've added the most recent information (Armstrong's response) to the history section.

Obviously these are big and emotive subjects, so to be clear: we cannot draw connections between circumstances ourselves. No reliable source I have seen has discussed Chester's history in connection to this, or indeed stated that Armstrong is herself a Scientologist. It is also not our responsibility to inform fans of a controversy. We simply follow what reliable sources deem to be notable. U-Mos (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in here - I've seen a lot of coverage on this, for I think it's fair to include, but I think edits like this are going into too much detail. We should be covering this in a high level way, not this play by play back and forth stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73 I agree, but now Bixler-Zavala has once again accused Armstrong of being still tied to Scientology, and even Chester Bennington's own son, Jaime, had some very strong words for the band, and especially for Mike Shinoda.

So, I'm afraid the confusion and (understandable) frustration over these allegations will just keep growing thicker in the next few days, unless the band finally decides to address them publicly. Because boy, do they need it, at this point... Oltrepier (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's useful for us to bear in mind the policy clause WP:NOTGOSSIP:

  Celebrity gossip and diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.

  in addition to WP:OFFTOPIC, a section of community guidance on writing better articles:

  Stay on topic. The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you are wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with that topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it.

  In that light, this material seems most appropriately covered in Armstrong's and Masterson's article, and it might be suitable for inclusion here if the sources carry meaningful discussion about how this is significant to the band as a musical group (and not merely our own conclusions); that's the key difference between gossip and encyclopedic content. Left guide (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good to bear in mind, and I would say exclude the further war of words from Bixler-Zavala. However, I think Chester's son's comments, as covered by a reliable source in direct connection to the band, warrant a further sentence. U-Mos (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide What about creating a separate "Controversy" section on this article, then? I expect many more updates on the case to come over the next few days, so maybe that would help us collect more sources and information more organically.

Plus, I would say these news are already very significant to the band, since Armstrong and Shinoda have both acknowledged the accusations, albeit partially, and there might be some commercial repercussions over the upcoming album and tour, at least in the US, should they fail to address the controversy properly (I still hope they can).

@U-Mos Yes, the comments from Chester's son should definitely be mentioned, although his complaints were mostly directed towards Shinoda and covered a wider range of aspects. Oltrepier (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me you are trying to use Wikipedia to pressure Armstrong in some fashion. Wikipedia is not the platform for that. It would be a mistake for us to prepare a way for future announcements; instead, the article can adjust to new information organically. Controversy sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CSECTION. "Controversy sections" should be avoided. Sergecross73 msg me 20:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet @Sergecross73 Sorry, I didn't know about it, and I swear it was not my intention to pressure anyone... Oltrepier (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Back when I first started, I didn't know either, because I saw it handled wrong at various articles, so I get it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the two sources Oltrepier provided above reliable? If so, I'd advocate using them to replace the paragraph currently in the article, since they seem to discuss Linkin Park more directly and in-depth. The article prose here can be re-framed and re-contextualized in a more relevant manner. WP:VARIETY is listed in green (generally reliable) at RSP, don't know about consequence.net. Left guide (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, see WP:RSMUSIC. Sergecross73 msg me 22:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I've gone ahead and implemented a WP:BOLD change that should assuage most of the concerns and objections raised in this thread. Left guide (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some fans have pointed out that Chester never technically left Linkin Park, and feel strongly about keeping him in the Members section. However, it would obviously be confusing to keep that there without any indication of why he's no longer active.

I propose two possible alternatives:

1. Chester is listed in Members, but with (deceased) next to his name.

2. A third section is created called "Inactive Members" and his name is added to that. 2607:FEA8:4C83:8100:A06D:6B52:AE27:AAFF (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead members are considered ex-members by Wikipedia standards. This topic was last discussed earlier this year, when the bassist of The Gazette passed away, and fans were very vocal about him not being a past member, since he technically never left. But being a member of a band implies being active in this band in some form, which a dead person obviously can't be. You can look at literally all other bands with dead members, would you want to change all of these just because some fans are too invested in their parasocial relationships? Seelentau (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar things were proposed, but rejected, when Taylor Hawkins passed away too. It is tragic to lose beloved band members...but that doesn't change the fact that death means they are no longer actively part of the band. This doesn't require a separate section - "past member" covers it just fine. This is an encyclopedia article, not a fansite, memorial, or eulogy. Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other day I made an edit regarding Linkin Park's activity and changed it to show the band has been active since their formation because I felt it was implicated by the years active that the band had broken up, even though they never have. Slipknot have similarly gone on hiatus in the past, but in their page, still shows that they have been active since their inception despite this. Though, the editor who removed my edit said: "It's "years active" not "are they broken up". Pretty obvious they were not an active band between 2018 and 2023." I'd obviously disagree with this as to split the timelines does still implicate that the band have broken up, but there might still be some contention about this, as early as 2020, the band's bassist said that the band were working on new music, still indicating band activity behind the scenes as well as the obvious 20th anniversary reissues. I would like to get some clarity on this and what others think regarding what seems to be a contentious issue. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels like this sends the wrong message to a potential reader on the article as they may also get the idea that the band broke up, even though the band always specifically stated they never broke up, but were just on an indefinite public hiatus. This is something important that I feel has to be addressed and discussed and to see if there is any room for a potential compromise. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They were inactive between 2017 and 2023, and there's plenty of sources (including from the last few days) that make that clear. They've also been clear that although the band's members worked together prior to last year, they didn't decide to be Linkin Park again until then. U-Mos (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't strike me as particularly accurate to label them as an active band for these last 7 years. Nor is Slipknots article any sort of example to aspire towards. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot went on a hiatus in the sense of "we're going to take some time off and be back then". Linkin Park went on a hiatus in the sense of "we don't even know if we'll be back as Linkin Park". That's the difference, I'd say. Seelentau (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "The lineup for the band's first seven studio albums included lead vocalist Chester Bennington and drummer Rob Bourdon until Bennington's death by suicide in July 2017 when the band entered an indefinite hiatus"

I believe it should be "The lineup for the band's first seven studio albums included lead vocalist Chester Bennington and drummer Rob Bourdon until Bennington's death by suicide in July 2017, which caused the band to enter an indefinite hiatus"

The first sentence makes it sound like the hiatus caused him to commit suicide Singjaii (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Singjaii: Done. Bowling is life (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Armstrong's join year is listed as 2023 under the band members section. She became the co-lead vocalist in September of 2024 (this is already referenced in the original article here) Hhhapz (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One is referring to when she actually joined, one is referring to when it was publicly announced. Sergecross73 msg me 11:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't catch that. My mistake. Hhhapz (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add "Live Guitar" or just "guitar" to Emily's instruments. There are multiple videos of live shows where she is playing guitar. Some sources: Up From The Bottom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQTz2X7PV5E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo2DcGPZOvw Over Each Other: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xch80eXIqm0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS4ASZEhWYs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAjxxj8aSXY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDaATm0VfOA Slogan2826 (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. YouTube videos considered original research. GoldRomean (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit: Sorry, didn't find the "Suggest an edit" button until after I posted this and I can't seem to find a Delete button...)

At the end of the "2023-Present" section, the release of the third and final single for From Xero deluxe, titled "Let You Fade", should be added. It was posted to the band's official YouTube channel May 15, 2025. Not sure if that is an acceptable source for the release. GarrettJeanes (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the "2023-Present" section, the release of the third and final single for From Xero deluxe, titled "Let You Fade", should be added. It was posted to the band's official YouTube channel May 15, 2025. Not sure if that is an acceptable source for the release. Suggested text below:

On May 15, the band released the third and final new single to be included on From Zero deluxe "Let You Fade". GarrettJeanes (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Bowling is life (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:Linkin Park discography#Split to split Linkin Park discography into Linkin Park albums discography and Linkin Park songs discography. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page for Linkin Park is over 200 kB, and their past should be split to a new article entitled History of Linkin Park. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we move the history of the band to a different article? Are you saying that the entire history section should be moved to a sperate article. Or just cutting parts of it out and putting it in a separate article.I've never seen that be done before on any other band article. I think it's unnecessary. I've seen bigger band articles than this. Bowling is life (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles such as History of Target Corporation and History of Walmart exist. For that reason, as well as WP:SIZE, History of Linkin Park can exist as well. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a common practice for band articles. The article could maybe use a little trimming but not much. I don't see the problem here. Bowling is life (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Bowling on this topic. I generally do not see many articles dedicated to the histories of bands. FA-class articles Pink Floyd, Megadeth, and Metallica have far more comprehensive history sections that are contained within the band's main page. -  StarScream1007  ►Talk  21:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that it isn't quite at that point yet; I made a similar argument at Talk:Metallica – could potentially be worth revisiting once the band finishes for good, but for now, maybe just a trim would suffice. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4TheWynne:, fire away! --Jax 0677 (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add a singer who has Linkin Park as his influence on his music that has not been listed :) Stained Soldier (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Dahawk04 Talk 💬 12:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Linkin park discograpghy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 19 § Linkin park discograpghy until a consensus is reached. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linkin Park is NOT nu metal. Seriously? What would lead anyone to believe that?

Korn, Disturbed, System Of A Down, Slipknot, POD, Deftones, Saliva and Limp Bizkit are nu metal. Putting Linkin Park in the same genre as those other bands is ridiculous. The "nu metal" reference really needs to be removed. Jimv1983 (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed in the prose of the article and well-sourced that they are a nu-metal band. References 74, 276, 279, 280, 281, 282 under Linkin Park#Notes and Linkin Park#Musical style and influences meet Wikipedia's Verifiability and Reliable Source policies and justify classifying the band as nu metal. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genres are based on what reliable sources say and many reliable call Linkin Park nu metal. Although, I do see where you are coming from because a lot of Linkin Park's music doesn't fall under nu metal. Everything from "Minutes to Midnight" to "One More Light" are not considered nu metal by reliable sources. But, their first two albums are considered nu metal by reliable sources and are also very important albums in that genre. Even some of their newer material has been described as a return to nu metal by sources. Because of that, you will find many reliable sources that call Linkin Park nu metal and many of them are included in this article. Genres are always based on reliable sources, not the opinion of editors. The genre is backed up and supported explicitly by sources. It should not be removed. See: WP:GWAR. As StarScream1007 said, this article follows Wikipedia's policies when it comes to genres and sources. Bowling is life (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So how is a band classified in a specific genre? The logical description would be having similarities in musical style to other bands of the same genre. How can a source be considered "reliable" when it classifies a band in a genre that has no similarities in musical style with any other bands in the genre? I'd argue that that removes any credibility of that source being a "reliable" source. Actual nu metal bands are bands like Korn (the creator of the genre), Disturbed, System Of A Down, Slipknot and Deftones just to name a few. How could any source that puts Linkin Park in the same genre as those bands that have no similarities in musical style be considered a "reliable" source. There really needs to be a review in what is considered a "reliable" source. Jimv1983 (talk) 01:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources the article uses for nu metal are reliable. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources The logic of bands needing to sound similar in order to be classified in the same genre makes no sense, especially with the bands you mentioned. There can be different types or eras of certain genres. While all the bands you listed are classified as nu metal, they are all different kinds of nu metal and don't sound similar. All of these bands have their own vibe, but they can still be classified as the same genre. So, why shouldn't Linkin Park not be classified as nu metal on Wikipedia? How are Hybrid Theory and Meteora not nu metal? They have all the main elements of nu metal, just look at the nu metal Wikipedia article. And most importantly, reliable sources call them nu metal. Like I said, those albums were important albums in the nu metal genre. And just because they moved away from nu metal starting with Minutes to Midnight doesn't mean they can't be classified as such. They will always be known as a nu metal band because of their first two albums and some of their new songs that returned to that sound. Bowling is life (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make sense? That's literally the definition of "genre".

From Merriam Webster dictioary

Genre: a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content

Notice the last part "characterized by a particular style, form, or content". That's what I meant by "sound similar".

Using the literal dictionary definition of "genre" it makes no sense to put Linkin Park in the same genre as those other bands I mentioned because they don't have the same "style, form or content".

None of Linkin Park's albums were "important to the nu metal genre".

"They have all the main elements of nu metal". No, they really don't.

Any "source" that would call Linkin Park nu metal has no credibility. Jimv1983 (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A source is not automatically stripped of its credibility just because you disagree with its genre classifications. That's not how it works on Wikipedia. The sources are reliable by Wikipedia standards (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources). Plus, they explicitly describe the band and the first two albums as nu metal. That's all that matters. In fact, hundreds of sources describe the band and their first two albums as nu metal. So, is every major rock and metal website not credible based on what you said, then? Hybrid Theory and Meteora are important albums in nu metal. Hybrid Theory brought nu metal to the mainstream. Both albums were huge commercial successes, and both prominently feature the characteristics of nu metal. Look at the nu metal article. The article states that nu metal features down-tuned guitars, singing, rapping, and screaming, DJ elements (sampling, turntable scratching, and electronic background music), and little to no guitar solos. How exactly do their first two albums not fit this description? Just because they ditched nu metal starting with Minutes to Midnight doesn't mean we should remove nu metal from the genres. Nor does it mean that we should remove the genres from the albums' articles. Linkin Park and Hybrid Theory are literally featured in the lead section of the nu metal Wikipedia article. We are just going by what sources say. See WP:GENREWARRIOR where it says "Any genre description must be sourced. Wikipedia prohibits original research, unverifiable claims, and conclusions that are not explicitly stated by the sources." This article abides by Wikipedia's guidelines for genres. Some of the bands you mentioned don't have the DJ elements and rapping, but they are still referred to as nu metal. They may not include rapping or turntables, but they do have the down-tuned guitars and other characteristics of the nu metal genre. It's fine if you disagree with Linkin Park being classified as nu metal, but you can't make a case for its removal when there are hundreds of sources that support its inclusion. If there were no sources explicitly describing the band as nu metal, then you could make the case that it should be removed. Everything I pointed out is not just my opinion. It can all be verified by reliable sources and Wikipedia guidelines. Bowling is life (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to read up on the rules here, specifically the stuff about WP:V and WP:SOURCES. Your personal opinions about Nu metal and Linkin Park does not hold much weight on Wikipedia. We are dealing with sources that are widely recognized as the most professional, authoritative music publications in the entire world. Your personal feelings have no place in an encyclopedia because they are completely overpowered by several reliable, published sources. As Bowling pointed out, these have been vetted by other editors and also frequently reviewed to assure they are reliable. Unless you have a legit grievance towards a source that meets WP:RS, there's no point in continuing this argument – and I know other editors have had this exact same discussion with you. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]