Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linkin Park

List of Linkin Park band members

I think this article is a bit too detailed for each individual member of Linkin Park. Comparing to other lists of band members (e.g. Red Hot Chili Peppers), this articles focuses too much on details than an overall timeline.

Also, since Dave Farrell, Rob Bourdon and Mark Wakefield don't have an separate article, we could selective merge the information about them to a new article as a starting point.

I've mentioned these ideas on Golu7276's talk page. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey MrLinkinPark333, I think the type of list you are talking about would be good if there are many members, touring members or session members for a group, I may stand for a correction. If possible, yes we should make new articles for Bourden, Farrell and Wakefield. Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 09:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be ideal to create articles for Bourdan and Farrell once they meet Wikipedia's criteria for Notability. I have a draft for Bourdan's article somewhere in my sandbox. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

TBH, is anyone going to use this redirect? Let's just nuke it. Qzekrom (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Notability Concerns - The Underground releases

I think a major thing the project should tackle is dealing with all these articles of the Underground releases. In their current form, most of them do not even come close to meeting Wikipedia's standard for having an article. Most of them look like LP Underground 2.0, where there is little content beyond a track listing and credits, and the only sources are these 2 fansites that wouldn't stand up to WP:RS or significant coverage. (One is just a discography page, for example.)

Anyways, I haven't done any source searching yet, but if someone was to nominate them for deletion in this state, and there aren't better sources/content out there, they'd almost certainly be deleted or redirected to the band or discography page. I'm honestly rather shocked it hasn't come up yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Sergecross73, I think you are right, but how about an article having all the releases together. But the concern is also about the fan club article, it can't be created. So how about an different article named as, "Linkin Park Underground discography", which would contain all the albums, tracklist, etc in it. Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 06:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not oppose this, as I imagine there's enough sources over the course of the 12 or so releases to meet the GNG. I'd recommend not using the "discography" word in the title though, or people may see it is a likely merge candidate to their overall discography, (not that I'd be opposed to that either), because I don't think its typical for a band to have multiple discography articles. It might just be better to be "Linkin Park Underground releases" or even just "Linkin Park Underground", with the opening sentence saying something like "The Linkin Park Underground series of releases were a collection of b-side and rarity albums releases by the band Linkin Park". (Or whatever wording/phrasing best summarizes what these releases are.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Sergecross73, that would be great, but the problem lies there. There once was a "Linkin Park Underground" page but later it was deleted, and was restricted to be recreated thereafter. So what we can do is, change the title a bit or make a page like referring to Stan. Mike:Golu · ^{[ Confidential message ]} 04:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm an Admin, so I can remove the protection. That being said, I find it even more concerning that a prior consensus seemed to be that even collectively they're not notable. I can't believe no one noticed this when it was spun out into individual articles. However, the old discussion dates back to 2008. I'll leave the initial decision up to you: if you have immediate and concrete plans to work on this (or any other dedicated/experienced editor I suppose), I'll unlock the page. If not, I'll probably start up a discussion at the more-active WP:ALBUMS. Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

genre warring Rebellion

Not sure if anyone is aware but there appears to be a "genre war" taking place on the Rebellion (song). Not sure what to do about this for the best but I figgured you might know what this song should be classed as. WyrmVane (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

It seems like one IP user is intentionally trying to be disruptive. A registered user would have been banned for violating Wikiedpia's 3RR policy. This appears to be one user hiding behind multiple IPV6 addresses to dodge successive warnings or a block. I would open a case with Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if this continues. An admin will protect the page from being edited by anonymous users since this is classified as disruptive edits form multiple IPs. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise StarScream1007. Will keep an eye on it and see what happens. WyrmVane (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No Prob. I will keep an eye on the page as well. I left a suggestion for one of the IP's as a courtesy (some admins may not take action unless a user has been warned first). Thank you for the heads up. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

And now the page is protected from IP editors until the 27th. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  03:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help StarScream1007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WyrmVane (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have just put in a request for protection for Keys to the Kingdom as that has just been edited again as well. It looks like this IP user(s) going for the Hunting party albam WyrmVane (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)