Talk:A Thousand Suns/Archive 1

Official

This album is now official. It will be released soon as it said on Linkin Park's offical website. The last page was written when the album was not offical. Now it is offical that this is the new album. I started this page about the new album and was hoping that people would add to it. Don't delete it. This is the new album. Don't beleive me, check Linkin Park.com. 14:30, 8 July 2010 Linkin Park rulz (talk | contribs)

No need for hostility. We assume good faith here. The reason we did push for its deletion at the time was based on the fact that there was absolutely nothing verifiable about the album. Everything was all fan-produced speculation, from the album title to the singles release date and title. As a matter of fact, the only thing remotely close to solid we had was a release date (September 2) and that in itself turned out to be incorrect. Because none of it was verifiable and all speculation, we moved to, and eventually did, delete the article in it's previous form and re-create it when there wasn't so much speculation as in it's earlier form, it could not be allowed to stand. That said, as more accurate and verifiable information becomes available, it shall be posted here. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Add this picture from the givin link to show that the album art is in progress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nocover.svg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkin Park rulz (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please remember to sign your post. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 22:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Genre

I think it probably makes sense not to add the genre of the album just yet. It hasn't been released yet, so how do we know if it's hip hop, electronica, indie-folk-prog-rock?! Anyone wishing to argue the case for, please speak up. alexdeangelis86 13:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, I agree not to add a genre until the album is released. We should, then, discuss it using some reliable sources of professional reviews of the album. Sirius 128 (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Although, Linkin Park's general genre has been Rock / Nu-Metal, as Minutes to Midnight, Underground 6, and MMMM Cookies showed, that can change at any moment. Thus, to assume would be incorrect. Therefore, I'll agree that it should not be added yet. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 13:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

well then if you all agree, than why is it protected and classified as alternative/electrorock?!?!?! i mean really if you must put any genre at all, its best if you be extremely vague! i mean like, something that its almost obvious that the album will be classified as...something like just putting...Rock, or Alternative or even both! but i think it reeeeaally stupid to put a specific genre when the album hasnt come out yet! i mean...seriusly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.117.90 (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not in stores but its genre is still essentially audible to the public. Digitelle (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

sure, if u say so, im pretty sure that the only songs u can hear completely are waiting for the end and the catalyst, and the other songs are 30second previews in itunes...of course, very reliable -_- 24.139.117.90 (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Cover Art Released

Oh, hey, look.

Shinoda just TOLD US that this pic is gonna be the cover art for The Catalyst.

http://www.linkinpark.com/profiles/blogs/the-catalystsingle-art

ADD IT TO THE ARTICLE.

Also, the main page of Linkinpark.com is showing a picture that is the same size and shape as album art!

http://www.linkinpark.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.56.13 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, that is pure speculation that the album would have the EXACT same base album art as the single. Also, till more information about the single becomes available, that article has been redirected here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and does not supply projected information based on assumptions and guesses. Till Linkin Park or Warner Music Group OFFICIALLY announces and OFFICIALLY presents the released album art, it shall remain such. Anything else honestly falls under WP:OR. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 01:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

[Is this good enough? It's the actual cover art according to Shinoda. Maybe thats only the background but who knows http://www.linkinpark.com/profiles/blogs/album-cover-revealed]

Yes and no; And I must apologize as I came off as something of an ass on the above comment. I was right in what I said, but wrong in the way I went about it. See, the reason I say yes is because it is clearly and evidently an official announcement, but typical policy does not usually make use of incomplete images or conceptual images as they tend to misrepresent the end product. The lack of title art is striking. It's also highly unusual that a single and album would share the exact same album art. I reiterate my previous point about the lack of text. But, admittedly, that's just my personal perspective on the matter and does not change the fact that it is a legitimate cover. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 08:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone Can Add True Information

Just go to http://www.lpassociation.com/, there you can see the album cover, the single cover, 6 of the songs and there langth, alot of stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncorona92 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be a self-admitted fan site. Not an official first-party announcement. Surprisingly, I have seen no edits for 6 announced songs or their lengths. With that, I can assume that 5 out of 6 of those songs are purely rumor as the only one we are aware of OFFICIALLY is "The Catalyst". This is why we don't post anything and everything the second it is released, things change quickly - especially as their is more than a full month between now and the full release date. I will remind you that people believed "QWERTY" was going to be on Minutes for Midnight after it's appearance on Underground 6.0 and swarmed the article changing it as such. Not implying that may happen this time around, but I am saying we should be careful on what we post, especially a text-less non-licensed album cover or a list of 5 songs which can not be verified with anything remotely close to an official announcement. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 07:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that when a member of the band posts the album cover and says it's the album cover, that's not good enough to allow use on the article?

Pffffffffft. Hello2112

If you're referring to the person by the name of "Joe" who happens to have posted literally everything on this album, none of which I can personally confirm on LinkinPark.com, Amazon, etc. except for a few pre-order links with absolutely no information on the article, and Joe happens to be a guy in England born on August 18, 1986 who definitely is NOT Joe Hahn who has born on March 15, 1977 in Dallas, TX. As I said, Fan site. I'll make you a deal, if it appears on Linkin Park's official website, a credible news site, or even here at Amazon.com, feel free to add it. Then it will have come from a verifiable reliable source and no one here will challenge it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 20:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey man, try Mike Shinoda's personal blog sometime.

What's that? The album cover there? Oh, is that the tracklist, fully confirmed? Do some research sometime. 65.9.133.190 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC).

I don't make a habit of citing personal blogs as valid sources and therefore rarely ever bother to check them. In this instance, it is a valid and verifiable source. Additionally, not to be an ass but, please, how about turning down your fanboy-a-meter. It's honestly rather distasteful, rude, and presents unnecessary hostility. The track list is correct, but understand that at Wikipedia, policies must be followed with regards to verifiability and reliable sourcing. That's why fansites are not usually seen as a reliable resource. If these control methods were not in place, all kinds of disinformation would be posted simply because someone found it on a website. The number of death hoaxes (aka: Dead by Wikipedia) that occur on a regular basis is more than enough proof of that. So that said, take the time to learn the policies before acting asinine to someone for actually trying to follow set-in-stone policies. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 08:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Patdt13, 24 July 2010 (Tracklisting)

1. The Requiem
2. The Radiance
3. Burning In The Skies
4. Empty Spaces
5. When They Come For Me
6. Robot Boy
7. Jornada Del Muerto
8. Waiting For The End
9. Blackout
10. Wretches & Kings
11. Wisdom, Justice & Love
12. Iridescent
13. Fallout
14. The Catalyst
15. The Messenger

Patdt13 (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This IS the real tracklisting, confirmed by Mike Shinoda on LinkinPark.com: http://www.linkinpark.com/profiles/blogs/a-thousand-suns-track-listing --The King 05:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has completed this. Done. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 08:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Make an article on The Catalyst

Make an article on the album's lead single The Catalyst. It is the new single soming out soon. Look on Linkin Park.com for details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.148.221 (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Two articles already exist. One was created after the other. They have both been redirected here till more information about them is available beyond what little we have (which is nothing more than cover art, a name, and a release date - barely enough for a stub-class article and not meeting the requirements of WP:NMUSIC. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 00:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There is enough info for a single article for The Catalyst, the song is 5:42 in length and through this Warner Germany website, http://www.warnermusic.de/linkinpark/music/?rel=8a0af81229f359390129fa1301150817&allreleasespage=1 we have the tracklisting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florez411 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read this entirely to understand why there is no where even close to enough information for an article as well as why it does not meet notability requirements. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 20:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Catalyst

It's August 2nd.

Where the fuck is the new single?! LOLHI IM QWERTY 16:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 16:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Catalyst

The single is released. Why there is not an article about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.99.99.67 (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The single is now noteworthy. It's being played on probably thousands of different radio stations. There's enough sexy information out there for you guys to make an article now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.6.72 (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. "Probably notable" does not constitute "is notable". Now it likely will become notable based on the band, but again, "Probably notable" =/= "is notable". See: WP:NMUSIC. Song must actually CHART first. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 21:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said it was probably notable. Only an idiot would question whether the song is notable or not. I said it is probably "being played on thousands of different radio stations". Let me modify that statement though. IT IS, if you've been paying attention, being played on thousands of radio stations. And now I have modified my statement to meet the illogical policies that you are obiding by. Are you seriously going to try to justify not having an article for this? Ok, if so, then let's take a trip back in time. The page for What I've Done was created in March of 2007 before we even had much of anything to talk about. And the song had not charted yet. The page for New Divide was created on the day the single came out, I believe shortly before it was officially debuted. There is a wealth of information out there to justify creating an article for The Catalyst. Yesterday, before this song came out, we had much more information on it than we did for What I've Done the day before What I've Done came out. I'll give it a couple days and if there's still not an article for this song, I'll make one myself and provide plenty of sources which can justify the relevancy of the article. And I'll do it in accordance with Wikipedia policies. There may have been a good reason for not creating an article before today, but now there is no good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.6.72 (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not assume bad faith here. Evilgohan2 is right, there probably is not much information out there to warrant a stand-alone article yet for "The Catalyst". The policies you seem to be taking an issue with are agreed upon by Wikipedia editors for Wikipedia editors. The notability guidelines for songs/singles are pretty fair and are based on the opinions of editors among the Wikipedia music community. Wikipedia has also been a little more strict about creating articles since 2007, so your argument about What I've Done does not hold much weight here. If you have any information or sources about "The Catalyst" please add it here to this article. In maybe a week or so the information could be merged into a stand alone article. Thank you. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

He said as he ignored the entire point made about New Divide. I really dont give a fuck about its notability, song sucks anyways. But the guy makes a point.

Well, obviously we do have enough information to make a page for the catalyst. For starters, it's a single. Secondly, it had appeared in Medal of Honor, in which the trailer was directed by Joe Hahn... This info is not necessary for A Thousand Suns, it's necessary for The Catalyst. We've got the single-cover for The Catalyst. You can mention that LP had a remix contest for The Catalyst. Of course, you have mentioned this on the ATS page, but why not move that information to The Catalyst since it has more to do with The Catalyst than ATS. Just a thought, therefore everybody is pleased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.181.238 (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition, there's a page for 'Runaway' and truthfully there is not a substantial amount of info to even support a 'Runaway' page. So, if Runaway deserves a page, The Catalyst deserves a page. Otherwise, I assume your edit choices are in bad faith, since having a page for The Catalyst may help its success for people who are seeking more information about it... which is what Wikipedia's purpose is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.181.238 (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but did you actually bother to read what Fezmar9 had to say, or more so, what the notability rules are? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 21:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Because The Catalyst was prematurely created too many times, it has received full protection until September 15th. Which means no one, not even myself, can edit it until then. It's possible to request unprotection, but you are going to need something a lot more concrete to do so. Simply existing and having enough information to fill an infobox would make it a pretty weak stub class. The reason the rules are more strict on song articles is because most of them exist as a stub class that could easily be merged with the corresponding album article. The appearance in Medal of Honor is trivial, but the remix contest is pretty notable–this is the first time I have heard of a fan-made remix being officially released. I will still hold with my original request of everyone, to add any sources or information to this article, and then merge it to a stand-alone article at a later time. There is really not much more of a discussion to be had until there are sources on charting, reception, writing and recording. The reason why Runaway (Linkin Park song) is deserving of an article is because it could be expanded, but no one has taken the time to do so. The Catalyst does not have an abundance of sources going into detail about the song. Of the sources I can see in Gnews search, most all of them only acknowledge its existence and nothing more. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)