Talk:Breaking Benjamin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Mostly for now-irrelevant 2015 discussions.

Improvement needed

This article needs quite some improvement. Especially in the history section, there are hardly any citations. Rather than sticking {{citation needed}} everywhere or adding {{refimprove}}, I will start a rewrite at User:Jacedc/sandbox. Feel free to help out, just make sure that all contributions are attributable to reliable sources. Thanks, Jacedc (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The article, since the band's hiatus, has been largely inactive - there just haven't been many/any experienced editors here contributing to it. I've monitored it in the last few years, but just in a "maintaining it from getting even worse" type way. Feel free to work on the article and make any changes, while things are still relatively slow (ie before new album release) you're not likely to find much opposition to changes yet. So nows probably a good time. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Figured as much. Hopefully the competent ones will check the talk page and see my sandbox and help out. :) Jacedc (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: Actually, I've finished the lead section and first history section so I went ahead and implemented it. Will work on the rest of the article in coming moments. Jacedc (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Regarding your recent correction to associated_acts, my apologies, I missed the point where it says to avoid acts which have only one member in common. I assumed the ones I added qualified under the "Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together." criteria. That said, why did you remove OurAfter? That band had ex-drummer Chad Szeliga and current bassis Aaron Bruch as members, so that's two in common, correct? Jacedc (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, Evanescence has toured as a sole co-headliner once before with Breaking Benjamin, which fits into the relevant criteria. I'll add both OurAfter and Evanescence to the parameter in my sandbox and will paste them over to this article should you approve of the additions. Jacedc (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Jacedc - Regarding OurAfter, I apologize, I only saw one person in common when I skimmed the page, I missed that there were 2 members. That can be added back in. Evanescence shouldn't be though. Co-headlining a tour is not one of the criteria for inclusion. Touring together as a collaboration' is, but that would be in, the artists actually consistently collaboratively playing together. Something more along the lines of Jay Z and Kanye West, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now. Thanks for the clarification! Jacedc (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: Issues have since been addressed. Thanks, Jacedc (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

References

References

Article history

@Sergecross73: Are you sure about using the {{ArticleHistory}}'s currentstatus=FGAN? I'm not opposed to keep the template, but the current status isn't "former good article nominee", the template right above it says that it is currently a good article nominee, so it's a bit conflicting, right? I think the template does a good enough job keeping track of the article's history, since it provides a date, link, etc. No need to really keep the status at FGAN. Jacedc (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not conflicting, it's just meant to be a log of its past statuses and pass/fails. See here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Right. As I said, I'm not opposed to keeping the template itself, just opposed to putting currentstatus=FGAN, since its current status is just GAN. This is the part that doesn't make sense to me:

"Breaking Benjamin was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake."

"Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated" - it has been renominated. By removing currentstatus=FGAN, it removes the above text (which is a direct contradiction to the {{GA nominee}} template right above it). Jacedc (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I misread what it was you're trying to change. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Dark Before Dawn release date in lede

Pinging @Kokoro20: Regarding your recent edits to the lede; we shouldn't specify "July" for the following reasons: we need to remain consistent with the rest of the lede and also keep the future in mind (I suggest you read the recentism essay, see my message above in the § "News" thread). We can't just say the year for the past four albums, and then the month and year for the latest album because that won't hold up over time. If the reader wants the release date, they'll scroll to the section on Dark Before Dawn. And this goes for all albums, as their release dates are all listed in the following sections as well. Also, even if we did specify the release date in the lede, what stops us from adding the day too? (I.e. July 23, 2015). We definitely don't want to do that, so we just use the year. And as for your summary reasoning that we shouldn't just use 2015 because it hasn't been released yet, I don't really see a problem with that. We don't need to specify when in 2015 just because we're in 2015. Again, the whole "users can just scroll down" and recentism arguments apply here. Jacedc (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the "it won't hold up over time" argument, just simply remove the month once the album has been released. I think it just doesn't look right to simply say it's coming out in 2015 when it's already 2015. Not to mention, some readers only read the lead anyway. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We should always write with the future in mind, especially if this article is going to be a GA (it's currently a GA nominee). That said, some stuff in the prose is time-sensitive, so I suppose that's not really an issue. But what is an issue is consistency and summarization. First we need to be consistent with the rest of the lede, and then we need to focus on making the lede just a concise overview. And that's fine if people just read the lede, I'm not really concerned with that. But if they want to know more about Dark Before Dawn or any other albums, then they'll scroll to their respective sections. I honestly don't see a problem with saying 2015. Just because we're in 2015 doesn't preclude us from the ability to be concise and consistent. Jacedc (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the recentism thing is only an essay, after all, not a policy or guideline. If it's the consistency that you're worried about, then perhaps we could just state the months for all the albums in the lead, at least for now? Also, on band articles, we usually state the month the new album is going to be released before it's released anyway, regardless whether it's consistent with the other albums or not anyway. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware it's only an essay, which is why I merely suggested you read it. I think, although it's not a policy, it still applies here. And I definitely don't think we should put all the months in the lead, because 1) that's what the history sections are for, and 2) what stops us from putting the full release date? And also, I don't too often encounter articles which puts the month of the release date before the year. This applies to video games, movies, musical albums, etc. But in all honesty it's a very minor thing, and a lot of other parts of the article are subject to quite some change when the album is released, so I'll just let this be. Kind regards, Jacedc (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for input

(Yo Serge, Kokoro20, and anyone else reading:) Who likes this lead more than the current one?

Breaking Benjamin is an American rock band from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania founded in 1998 by lead singer and guitarist Benjamin Burnley and drummer Jeremy Hummel. The original incarnation of the band included, alongside Burnely and Hummel, guitarist Aaron Fink and bassist Mark Klepaski. This lineup released two studio albums, Saturate (2002) and We Are Not Alone (2004) before Hummel was replaced by Chad Szeliga in 2005. The group thereafter released two more studio albums, Phobia (2006) and Dear Agony (2009) before entering an extended hiatus in early 2010 due to Burnley's recurring illnesses.

The release of a compilation album amid the hiatus, Shallow Bay: The Best of Breaking Benjamin (2011), unauthorized by Burnley, brought about legal trouble within the band resulting in the departure of Fink and Klepaski. When Szeliga announced his departure in 2013, citing creative differences, Burnley became the sole member of the band. However, in late 2014, the band announced a reformation including a lineup of bassist and backing vocalist Aaron Bruch, guitarist and backing vocalist Keith Wallen, guitarist Jasen Rauch, and drummer Shaun Foist, after which the group released Dark Before Dawn in 2015.

Despite significant lineup changes, the band's musical style and lyrical content has remained consistent with Burnley serving as the primary composer and lead vocalist since the band's inception. The group is noted for its formulaic hard rock tendencies, with angst-heavy lyrics, swelling choruses, and "crunchy" guitars. The band has collectively sold more than 7 million units in the United States alone and yielded two platinum records, one gold record, one gold single, and one number one record.

References

This version is a little more elaborate, which I think could be good. Plus it splits up better into paragraphs, whereas the current one is just one big paragraph. I've figured I already changed the article so much without any real discussion so this time I'd like to run it past the two most involved editors here other than myself. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Jacedc (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the new one better. The old one was basically a patched up version of the crappy old version. This sounds and flows much better. Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sweet, glad you like it. :) I'll give Kokoro a day or so to give input. Jacedc (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Eh screw it. If he has input he can be bold and change it himself or leave additional comments here. Jacedc (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks more organized, is broken up into more than one paragraph, and doesn't include any citations, which preferably should be avoid for the lead, especially if the material in question already cited elsewhere in the article. Overall, I support the change. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Great! :) It does have one citation, but that's for the 7 million figure, which isn't stated anywhere else in the article. Jacedc (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I must have missed that. Well, if possible, it should be cited elsewhere in the article instead. If not, the lead should be fine too. Kokoro20 (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The only place I can think of where the 7 mil figure would be appropriate is in a legacy and influence section as many other band articles do, but as far as reliable sources go, the band doesn't really have any legacy or influence; yet, of course. ;) One citation in the lede is okay. I've seen multiple other articles with citations in the lede, sometimes it's just inevitable. Jacedc (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

News

Hi, everyone! I recently rewrote the "Reformation and Dark Before Dawn" section (as well as the rest of the article), and I just want to say a word of warning to avoid recentism and proseline. Before I rewrote the section, it was full of up-to-the-minute information such as the release of teasers and all information regarding their recent performances. If you compare this to the other sections, it is far too detailed and not appropriate in the long-term perspective, so please try to avoid adding "breaking news" to the article unless it's relevant to the band in the long term (you can always gauge the appropriateness by comparing it to the sections before it). Now, I understand the urge may be hard to resist, so I've kept a very revised version of the content that was before it, all attributable to reliable sources which reflect a high level of notability. Kind regards, Jacedc (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

On a second note, the name of the new album need only be attributed to one source, and that source is the KSHE '95 website. All other sources cite KSHE '95 as their source, so it's unnecessary to add others if we have the very original. Jacedc (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, though I fear you're kind of talking into an empty hallway here. The article was on the rough shape it was because its largely been written by casual editors that just don't understand much about how the website works. Like, the type that doesn't even know about how talk pages work, let alone read/discuss on them. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably true, but it will be useful to be able to point to this message thread should someone add recentism-ridden content that will have to be undone. Jacedc (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Might wanna proofread this section and fix a few things I'd do it but it's unsurprisingly locked down 66.212.64.164 (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific or attempt this yourself, as I don't particularly see anything that needs to be fixed there after Jacedc's cleanup. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Media credits

I've been thinking about this for a little while now, and would just be bold and do it myself, but I want at least a second opinion: Breaking Benjamin has had their songs in quite a bit of media, including films, TV shows(/appearances), and video games. First question, is it normal for a Wikipedia article to contain such information if it exists? I've poked around a little bit, but I haven't found anything on the subject in other articles. Secondly, how would we integrate it if we did add it? Would we try to put it in a history section or create a new § Media credits containing a table of such information? As far as relevancy goes, the band's appearances in media have drawn criticism and accusations as a "sell-out band," and Burnley himself has commented on it (I can provide sources and quotes if need be). Third, if we included it, how much detail would we go in to? Lastly, if we do go into detail, would we split it up into a different article? We currently split the band's discography into a separate article (Breaking Benjamin discography), because, according to relevant guidelines, it consists of a long list, but media appearances/credits would be much longer. Among the more popular appearances include Surrogates, Halo 2, Halo Reach, and Guitar Hero/Rock Band appearances. Jacedc (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Generally, dedicated sections to media appearance like this only appear in sloppy, un-maintained articles, and are almost always removed once cleaned up. They generally end up violating WP:TRIVIA, as people almost always start listing off rather unimportant factoids. (i.e. A 2 second clip of 'Polyamorous' was played in the background of some random B movie in 2008.) Instead, usually we just integrate the major ones in the History sections (like "Blow Me Away" being on Halo 2 soundtrack, especially since that wasn't an album track.) The smaller ones, if they need to be mentioned anywhere, can always go in the "Release and promotion" type sections in the relevant album articles. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. I had planned on going further in depth on the track articles once I get around to cleaning those up. I will add the more important ones to this article later. Jacedc (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Logo?

File:Breaking Benjamin - Emblem.svg

Should we include some information about the logo? I noticed that the (FA) article Nine Inch Nails does for theirs, but it's actually history-relevant. The only thing I could find on the logo history-wise is that the band states it's a variation of the Celtic knot with four interlocking "B"'s, and that Burnley, Fincke, and Klepaski have it tattooed on their left wrist, and Szeliga on his right wrist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacedc (talk • contribs)

If that's the only source on it, probably not. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'm going to bring this up again because I found that on the Godsmack article (FA), their logo is included and there isn't even any accompanying text. I'm not saying we should do something for one article because another article does it, but what is the difference here, anyway? Jacedc (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page, it looks like it was made an FA way back in 2007, which leads us to a couple of scenarios:

1. Standards, expectations, and reviews were all much lower back then. I've come across many GA/FA articles from that time period or earlier that really arent much more than C or B class nowadays. The standards became stricter - what they are today, closer to the 2010 area. This theory is backed by this 2010 commentary on the talk page.
2. I didn't dig through the pages history to confirm or deny this, but with it being done in 2007, that leaves us with 7-8 years since then where it may have been added or altered since its final review. I personally am constantly maintaining and cleaning up past GA/FA's, such as Tool (band) and A Perfect Circle, and especially with the latter, if I wasn't there, it'd likely degrade into a less than GA level. Godsmack could be a victim of this sort of decay as well.

Just 2 thoughts on it. I mean, I'm not totally opposed to its inclusion, I just think you're going to run into some opposition when it gets formally reviewed if you don't have more/better sources testifying to its significance/relevance. Sergecross73 msg me 18:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input. I hadn't thought about the fact that standards may have been lower, now I'll be able to take that into consideration for other things too, so thanks! (By the way, I've constantly been looking for good logo sources since I started this article, but I always come up dry Ah well). Jacedc (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

References

References

Alternative metal vs. alternative rock

@DannyMusicEditor: Hi, Danny. I changed the genre from alternative metal to alternative rock based off of the amount of reliable sources we have available in the § "Musical style and lyrics" section. When I rewrote this section, I removed all unreliable/duplicate sources and kept/added only unique, reliable sources. This balances out in favor of alternative rock, not alternative metal. That said, there is still strong support for alternative metal, just not as much as there is for alternative rock. Plus, please read this sentence in that section: The band's recurrent expositional biography states, "Korn and Tool have also been cited as influences, but unlike Korn, Breaking Benjamin doesn't have strong hip-hop leanings and isn't quite alternative metal — hard alternative rock, certainly, but not quite alternative metal." This very, very prominent expositional biography was originally written by Alex Henderson of AllMusic, a very popular music site that constitutes a highly relied-upon source in not just the Breaking Benjamin article, but also a lot of other music articles. This biography has since been perpetuated by websites such as MTV, Billboard Magazine, Pandora's Music Genome Project, Spotify, and countless other sources. Therefore, the article can't really say the band's genre is more alternative metal than it is alternative rock. This is the rationale for me undoing your last edit. Kind regards, Jacedc (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey there. I check this article sometimes, but don't really edit it.

Anyway, why not just add alternative metal as a secondary genre to alternative rock if the support for it is still strong? We have five sources in the article saying alternative metal (versus only one source saying they aren't alternative metal), which is still a lot. Kokoro20 (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I can see both sides. Jacedc's approach is one rooted entirely in policy and precedent. However, DannyMusicEditor's approach is a common compromise. Sergecross73 msg me 00:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the three genres fit within the 2-4 genres recommendation at Template: Infobox musical artist. I'm not DannyMusicEditor, by the way. I'm just a lurker of this article. Upon seeing alternative metal removed, I thought I would re-add it, giving the above rationale. Alternative metal has been listed here for years, and has been generally agreed upon, so I don't think it should have been arbitrarily removed. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I know, I wasn't talking about you either. DannyMusicEditor is the person who made the initial reverts, which lead to Jace starting up this discussion. I was only referring to their 2 stances. That being said, I am rather puzzled by your stance that it was "arbitrarily" removed. Jace gave a rather good explanation of his actions - it wasn't arbitrary, it was based upon the quantity of sources, and due to the prose of a source. It's fine if you want to disagree with it, but to call his actions "arbitrary" is objectively wrong. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I know he made the first revert as well. I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not him. Okay, maybe "arbitrary" shouldn't have been the word to use, but he did so without discussing first, when many other sources call them alternative metal, so I decided to challenge his removal of the genre. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kokoro20: I see your point. However, wouldn't that "one source" gain more merit if it's perpetuated by other sources, especially very popular sources, such as Billboard Magazine? Additionally, does it really make sense to list "alternative rock" and "alternative metal" side by side? That's like saying their genre is rock and metal. Metal is a subgenre of rock music. The thing is, we have strong support for both alt-metal and alt-rock, but we have stronger support for alt-rock and we have a highly reliable source saying in fact it isn't alt-metal. (Not to mention the sources pointing to alt-metal are less reliable than alt-rock, as those sources include local newspapers and About.com, with the exception of the passive New York Times mention). I'm not opposed to leaving alterna metal in the infobox, though I still don't see a point in listing a subgenre next to a more encompassing genre. And thanks for your input, even though you don't edit. :) Jacedc (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't mean we should only list the genre that's the most strongly supported, if others are strongly supported too. Listing both would be a common compromise, as Sergecross stated. Instead arguing whether they are alternative rock or alternative metal, it's best to just list both. To me, their music too hard to just be alternative rock, and the sources back me up on that. There's also no real evidence that AllMusic is more reliable than the other sources at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, where About.com is also listed (although with only certain writers being acceptable, with Tim Grierson, who is the author of the article that's cited, being one of them). Kokoro20 (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, as I said before, alternative metal is a subgenre of alternative rock. In otherwords, the term "alternative rock" includes alternative metal. That's mainly why I don't see a point in listing alternative metal in the infobox. Jacedc (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

True, but I would rather be more specific, than only using the more vague alternative rock label. In any case, I've found additional sources for alternative metal, which I might add to the article to give it more weight.

Also, thanks for the compliment you gave earlier. Just maybe I'll edit the Breaking Benjamin articles a little more now. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, by all means, add more sources. When I looked around I was trying not to exceed around eight sources for a single thing, cause that gets sloppy, but given that the issue is a bit contentious I won't have a problem with having more than eight, or ten, or whatever. And I understand you wanting to add a more specific label, but in that case, the more specific label should be used and the more vague label not used. But we can't do that due to the source issue, the expositional biography stating the band isn't alternative metal, so we're in a dilemma here of trying to avoid the whole "Genre = Rock and metal" analogy. Jacedc (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Best to just keep them both listed then. That should be fine. Many GA and FA articles also pass listing both parent genre and sub-genre(s) anyway. I think I'll add those additional sources later. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I'll leave it in good faith, though I'll just say I generally oppose it. As for the sources, I patiently await them. :) Jacedc (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I know that this will probably change nothing, but it is widely known that they are some type of metal, whether unreliably or not. (There are even a few reliable ones.) The material in their most famous albums such as We Are Not Alone and the possibly even heavier Saturate compared to the description on their main page would confuse readers as to why there was nothing listed about metal. I am thinking the way it is as of the time this message was written (alt rock, alt metal, post-grunge) should cover it well enough, specifically with emphasis on alt rock (meaning it goes first, then alt metal). As for Alternative metal being a subgenre of alt rock, you are right, but keep in mind it's also technically a sub of heavy metal. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Beware editing Wikipedia based off of what you personally think something is, especially for genres of music. We can only use what the sources say. I might agree with you that they're alterna-metal, and I might not, but that doesn't matter. I honestly haven't said what genre I think they are because it doesn't matter. As for me removing the "/metal" in your previous edit, we should only list a very generic label then clarify more specifically in the "Musical style" section. In fact, the original lead just said "Breaking Benjamin is an American rock band." The only reason I added "alternative" was because they're definitely alternative something. Thanks, Jacedc (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Definitely agree with Jace here. This is somewhat similar to the music of the Smashing Pumpkins. Yes, some of their songs enter a metal type sound, but much of their music falls into the realm of just mainstream commercial rock, or other genre. Alt metal may describe some songs, but not them as a band as a whole, (Rain, Forget It, etc) and I think the breakdown of sources from Jace represents that sentiment. Stick with "rock" for the lead, and then the reader can read the musical style section of they want to know more. Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Shaun Foist redirect

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This discussion was moved to here from Talk:Shaun Foist as a result of its page's redirect to this talk page's article.
Notability I've got some serious concerns about Shaun Foist's notability. There needs to be significant, third party coverage on subjects to have an article. Almost all of the sources are either directly from his social media or band's pages (first party) or passing mentions of him (Sure, Blabbermouth mentions his name in the reformation of Breaking Benjamin..but that's it.) Unless it gets better, it should probably be redirected to one of his band's articles. Sergecross73 msg me 02:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC) I concur. This should have already been done. I will redirect to Breaking Benjamin sometime next week unless someone else does first. Jacedc (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)  Done Jacedc (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I talked a bit further with the article creator back in the day, but it ultimately went unresolved, and I had forgotten about it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing! :) Jacedc (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Aaron Fincke redirect

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This discussion was moved to here from Talk:Aaron Fincke as a result of its page's redirect to this talk page's article.
Notability There is no indication that Fincke is independently notable. If no third-party sources can be found (and I just did a Google search that found only passing mentions) we should redirect this to Breaking Benjamin. Huon (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC) Agree. If no one objects to this within seven days, that's what I'll do. Jacedc (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)  Done Jacedc (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Hummel redirect

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This discussion was moved to here from Talk:Jeremy Hummel as a result of its page's redirect to this talk page's article.
Notability I'm not entirely convinced this article meets any notability criterion at WP:NMUSIC. Hummel could fall under "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." (WP:COMPOSER § 1.0), though I don't feel as though his co-writing credits for Saturate and "Blow Me Away" really give him a whole lot of notability, especially when compared to the weight of all of the other points (which he hardly if not doesn't meet). Hummel has had little independent media coverage, which raises verifiability concerns, and thusly notability concerns. I believe this article should be redirected to Breaking Benjamin, and will do so in the next seven days if no one objects to this or improves the article. Jacedc (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC) This would suffer from a case similar to Fincke's but even worse. One reference for the whole article, but that sourced statement is not important to the person itself. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC) I plan on redirecting that article to this one tomorrow (I like to wait seven days before doing something like this). By tomorrow its seven days will be up. Jacedc (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Unless some better sources are found, I fully support a redirect as well. Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)  Done Jacedc (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Mark Klepaski redirect

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This discussion was moved to here from Talk:Mark Klepaski as a result of its page's redirect to this talk page's article.
Notability This article exhibits no notability as per WP:NMUSIC. I will redirect this article to Breaking Benjamin in seven days unless someone objects or addresses the issue. Jacedc (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)  Done Jacedc (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on April 28, 2015

I noticed that some of the member information in the timeline is not reflected from what is stated in the Current and Former member list above. Examples: Shaun Foist- Drums, Electronic Percussion, Programming (2014-Present) Is only shown as Drums, Percussion. Another is Aaron Fink- Lead Guitar, Backing Vocals. He did not sing while in Breaking Benjamin, which is show in the timeline, but not in the formal writing. Damon1998 (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kharkiv07^Talk 15:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You're actually correct in that Aaron Fink did not perform any backing vocals while in Breaking Benjamin (or at least, there are no reliable sources for it), so that will be removed. Thanks for bringing it up. Jacedc (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand why, but editors across the project always feel the need to plaster "backing vocals" on ever band member who has ever done as much as spoken at a live show, it seems. Its a problem all over. Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the reason Fink had backing vocals in the timeline was because he only did that live - and even so, I'm told it was not very often. It was right to remove it, it shouldn't have been there. Parts that are not played as a major/primary part should not be listed in the timeline. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Right. He sang backup while playing "Skin" live (once), but other than that, Burnley has said that before the new lineup he didn't have any backup singers and recorded studio backup vocals himself. Jacedc (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2015

Please change "In late 2005, drummer Jeremy Hummel filed a federal lawsuit against Breaking Benjamin." to "In late 2005, drummer Jeremy Hummel filed a federal lawsuit against Breaking Benjamin and was represented by Thomas P. Heeney, Jr., Esquire, of Heeney & Associates, P.C. located in Boyertown, Pennsylvania." This request adds more content to the article and is easily verified through the Court filings in the case. Bazabooza (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: This doesn't strike me as a piece of information that would be useful for someone reading the article on Breaking Benjamin. See also WP:NOTADVERTISING. --ElHef (Meep?) 12:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What is the significance of adding the name of the lawyer/associates that represented them. Did it play any sort of significance in how things played out? It strikes me as an unimportant detail for the band's article. (And potentially just free promotion for the lawyers.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, obviously just promotion/advertisement. Jacedc (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

July 11, 2015

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
With this edit I left a summary of "see talk", so here's a little brief explanation since using the diff will be a little hard to identify exactly what changed: I converted all of the sources to shortened footnotes in order to unclutter the editor, as it became quite impossible to sift through all the clunky text to find the beginning and ending of the <ref> tags, plus it just looked awful. This is much neater (especially in the musical style section where I was able to combine multiple sources into one ref, so it looks so much neater both in read mode and edit mode). Also the sources are alphabetized now, which is better. I also took this opportunity to swap out some sources with better sources and also consolidated some sentences to use fewer citations, as before they used more than necessary. I also added/removed a few minor things, just a general cleanup, but the overall nature of the content is unchanged. When I first rewrote the article I found sources and used them as I went, but now I've had the advantage of retrospective analysis in order to determine which sources and which blocks of information are more suitable for the article as a whole. With the release of the new album, new, better sources have become available as well. In my opinion it's a lot more cohesive now. Additionally, I added "hard rock" to stylistic sections of the article in light of recent news reports, reviews, etc., calling the band hard rock. Since this looks like a pretty big overhaul in the diff, I'll be happy to answer any inquiries regarding this (although I doubt there's really anyone active enough to really care too terribly much). Kind regards, Jacedc (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Oh also, I almost forgot, I removed the associated acts field because none of the bands listed have individual articles any longer, which means they're non-notable, which means, according to the template's documentation, they shouldn't be listed. Jacedc (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the edits. One thing I would say is, that it is customary to write out the full reference when it is first mentioned. Look for instance at the Nirvana (band) page as a guideline to follow. 19:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Karst (talk) 19:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC) That makes sense, considering it's the lead. Thanks for the tip, will do! Jacedc (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Nice edit. You did quite a big overhaul there. Yeah, the "Musical style and lyrics" section was getting a bit too crowded with references. I fully support the addition of hard rock too. In fact, I was recently thinking adding it to the infobox myself, and cite the sources down in the prose, but you did that for me. After all, three of their five albums are sourced as hard rock on their articles, so why not the band article as well? By the way, I've made a few further changes to the "Musical style and lyrics" section. Kokoro20 (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC) I really find it quite ridiculous to have 4 genre present to describe such a basic, straightforward sound. Sergecross73 msg me 23:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC) I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here again. I would rather follow WP:DUEWEIGHT, as they are commonly described under all 4 genres. Now, if there were 7 genres or so they are commonly described as, then I could understand trying to trim things down. But 4 genres does still fit within the recommended limit for artists articles. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC) How does DUEWEIGHT support these 4 redundant genre exactly? It may not violate it, but it doesn't offer an argument actually for it. Sergecross73 msg me 01:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC) I was thinking about this when I added hard rock. Thing is, I like hard rock much better because it is far more broad, and at the same time more accurate because alt-rock and alt-metal only fits a certain selection of their songs, not really the band as a whole. Post-grunge is meh in my opinion. But now we're at the point where we have to decide what genres we want to remove and why. I definitely think hard rock should stay, per above and also because of the fact that hard rock is found in far more places than any other genre, especially in all 2015 sources. Billboard, Rolling Stone, USA Today, Loudwire, IGN, and Entertainment Weekly are all calling them hard rock. Post-grunge is a subgenre of alt-rock and hard rock, both of which are already listed, so I say we nix that one if we're going to nix any of them. I've already made my feelings about alt-metal clear. Jacedc (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC) I agree. I don't even care much as to which one or two would be removed - in the scheme of time and music, all 4 are extremely silimiar. The Wikipedia way, though, would be to trim back the ones less prevalent in third party reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC) I think all four should stay there. If we absolutely have to remove one though, I would lean towards alternative rock, because both alternative metal and post-grunge are sub-genres of it, and the more specific genres the band are commonly associated with. Also, none of their albums are even sourced as alternative rock, whereas the other three genres are for most of their albums, so that would be more consistent. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Conceptually, can you explain why all four are necessary? Like, what each one individually adds, and what is lost when one is removed. Sergecross73 msg me 02:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC) So that the reader gets an idea of what they are commonly known as from glance. But as I said, if we must remove one, it should be alternative rock, for the reasons I explained above. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC) I would have to disagree with Kokoro on this one. We should try to keep the most broad option, not the more exclusive/particular options, for the reason that musical styles, unlike music genres, are subjective and dubious. Plus, more of their songs will match broad labels whereas only certain songs match particular labels. So I would say post-grunge and alternative metal are the first two to go, as they're too exclusive and for the other reasons as I've explained above. Alternative rock includes alt-metal and post-grunge. Another con to post-grunge is that it's a label which more describes a certain musical era, not a musical style. Examples of post-grunge bands vary a lot in style, but have one thing in common: heritage. In that sense Breaking Benjamin would be post-post-grunge, or a minor offshoot of post-grunge. The problem with alternative metal is that it's pretty much an outdated label. Back in the early '00s, commentators liked to slap alterna-metal on any band that had heavy metal instrumental influences with melodic vocals, regardless of the actual technical qualifications of such a thing as alternative metal (compare Korn, an actually alternative metal band, with Breaking Benjamin, for instance.) This is supported by the fact that the sources that have alternative metal meet one of the following two criteria: either they were about the earlier albums ('02, '04, etc.) or they were a negative review which also included labels such as nu metal, emo, Christian metal, etc., which are often considered somewhat sullying/dismissive, given to music without putting any thought or consideration into it. I'm not saying alternative metal is a completely false label for Breaking Benjamin, but definitely the lesser accurate of the two. (Plus; see the AllMusic bio.) But even with that said I'm sure I'll be met with some disagreement. Therefore I propose doing it the "Wikipedia way", as Serge mentioned, and keep only the ones with the most sources. The only con to that is that not all sources have been found and sources aren't fixed either; some new sources may come along and say one thing after we've already decided to cut it. Plus, I don't think we'll want to sift through all 80+ sources on the article to find out which ones say what. I suppose my !vote goes to only keeping hard rock and alternative rock. (But, this is just for the infobox right? All styles should stay in the musical style section.) Jacedc (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC) What if we only put rock in the infobox? After all, rock is the genre, whereas everything else is a musical style, or subgenre. Last time I checked, the infobox label said Genre. Jacedc (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, they can all stay in the musical style section. But for the infobox, my vote is for hard rock, alternative metal and post-grunge to stay. As for more broad genres, we already have hard rock for that, which is one of the reasons I would rather have alternative metal (I'm sure there's more sources that call them that in a more neutral manner too) and post-grunge listed than just alternative rock. As for just "rock", that's way too general, and I think it should be more specific at glance. Subgenres are genres, after all. Yes, genres/styles are subjective labels, but that's why we use sources and list what they say. As for the AllMusic bio saying they aren't alternative metal, AllMusic shouldn't be used for all things genre-related (not to mention, other pages at AllMusic call them alternative metal). Also, it doesn't make any sense to have alternative metal and post-grunge listed for most of their albums, but not the band article, as I've mentioned. Meanwhile, I haven't seen sources calling any of their albums alternative rock. Seeing as we may not reach an agreement between the three of us, I'll ask for others to comment. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC) I don't see the point in getting rid of alternative rock in favor of two practically synonymous and rather dubious subsets of it. As Serge touched on before, all of the labels in question practically mean the same thing in regard to Breaking Benjamin. I think the reason we can find so many sources for each different style is because they're all interchangeable. Besides, Breaking Benjamin can be alternative one day and mainstream the next. In all reality, the band is just modern radio rock. Their style isn't as complicated as four different labels. The infobox should just be used for generalized, broad information, similar to the lead section, and more detailed things can be covered in detail in a dedicated musical style section with all the sources necessary. Seeing as how alt rock and hard rock are direct subgenres of rock, while alt metal and post grunge are subgenres of alt rock, we should just use the two broader parent genres. And no, hard rock can't just be our token "broad genre". Hard rock isn't a parent genre of alt metal and post-grunge afterall. Jacedc (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Genres Genre source list Hello, in order to assist the discussion, I've compiled some of the quotes from the album reviews and sources. This system worked for Iggy Pop article. Feel free to add other sources you've found. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Hard rock "Pennsylvania hard rockers with a radio-friendly approach that's aggressive and forceful yet melodic." Allmusic biography "Breaking Benjamin still follows the formulaic pattern of most every hard rock group since the mid-'90s -- the music is hard to resist." Allmusic - Breaking Benjamin - Saturate review "As part of the whole new school hard rock movement (think Staind, Cold, Godsmack, Nickelback, etc.) Breaking Benjamin has amassed a loyal mainstream following since they debuted in 2002 with Saturate." IGN - Breaking Benjamin - Phobia review "The tender approach of “Ashes of Eden,” with its commanding string orchestration and low-key performance, is the only point when the group shies away from its typical hard rock/alt metal style." About.com - Breaking Benjamin - Dark Before Dawn Review "That said, as thick, smartly produced, largely inoffensive blasts of generic hard rock go, you could do a lot worse, and longtime fans will appreciate the fact that Burnley and his new shipmates stay true to the band's unwavering allegiance to all things late-'90s/early-2000s post-grunge/hard rock." Allmusic - Dark Before Dawn review Post-grunge "When Breaking Benjamin started playing around Wilkes-Barre, they were far from a carbon copy of Lifer -- instead, they favored a radio-friendly post-grunge approach that was aggressive and forceful yet melodic." Allmusic biography "The main problem with the guys has always been that while everything is pulled off capably, there isn't always much to distinguish them from the rest of the post-grunge/alt-metal pack or really, each of their songs from one another." Allmusic - Breaking Benjamin - Phobia review "Breaking Benjamin's fourth foray into the crowded waters of early 21st century alternative metal/post-grunge feels a lot like their first three." Allmusic - Dear Agony review "As something of a less lyrically skilled Earshot-type outfit, Breaking Benjamin is often labeled as being post-grunge, but this writer feels post-industrial was once more accurate, with such tight rhythms and a lot of emphasis on electronic hum — most notably on Saturate and We Are Not Alone." Consequence of Sound - Dear Agony review "The general perception towards post-grunge outfit Breaking Benjamin has always been an interesting one." Sputnikmusic - Dear Agony review "That said, as thick, smartly produced, largely inoffensive blasts of generic hard rock go, you could do a lot worse, and longtime fans will appreciate the fact that Burnley and his new shipmates stay true to the band's unwavering allegiance to all things late-'90s/early-2000s post-grunge/hard rock." Allmusic - Dark Before Dawn review ""Dear Agony," the fourth full-length album from the Pennsylvania post-grunge band Breaking Benjamin, enters the Billboard 200 at No. 4 with 134,000 copies sold, according to Nielsen SoundScan." Billboard "It was the eve of what should have been post-grunge band Breaking Benjamin's coronation." The Morning Call "Frontman and band namesake Benjamin Burnley (right) is the post-grunge stalwarts’ only remaining founding member." Boston Globe "Breaking Benjamin is almost the quintessential example of how good post-grunge can be." 411Mania Alternative metal "The main problem with the guys has always been that while everything is pulled off capably, there isn't always much to distinguish them from the rest of the post-grunge/alt-metal pack or really, each of their songs from one another." Allmusic - Breaking Benjamin - Phobia review "Breaking Benjamin have steadily been growing their audience this decade with well-crafted alt-metal tunes about the agonies of love, and because Burnley is a likeable, empathetic vocalist, he’s managed to turn his relationship problems into relatable songs." About.com - Breaking Benjamin - 'Dear Agony' Review "Breaking Benjamin's fourth foray into the crowded waters of early 21st century alternative metal/post-grunge feels a lot like their first three." Allmusic - Dear Agony review "The tender approach of “Ashes of Eden,” with its commanding string orchestration and low-key performance, is the only point when the group shies away from its typical hard rock/alt metal style." About.com - Breaking Benjamin - Dark Before Dawn Review "...or members of the alternative metal band Breaking Benjamin can explain how their latest album came together." Small Business Management: Launching and Growing Entrepreneurial Ventures "American alternative metal outfit Breaking Benjamin will release three songs for Rock Band Sept. 29, day-and-date with the band's fourth album release, Dear Agony." IGN "Alt-metal crew score hit big with 'Dark Before Dawn' despite upheaving nearly entire lineup" Rolling Stone "Breaking Benjamin returned with their first album in six years, and if you needed further proof that tepid, mopey alt-metal is still popular 20 years later..." PopMatters Alternative rock "Korn and Tool have also been cited as influences, but unlike Korn, Breaking Benjamin doesn't have strong hip-hop leanings and isn't quite alt metal -- hard alt rock, certainly, but not quite alt metal." Allmusic biography "The Wilkes-Barre band, which gained worldwide fame for alternative rock anthems focused mainly on affliction and adversity, has been torn apart by a feud between its namesake lead singer and two longtime bandmates, according to a trove of court documents obtained by The Citizens' Voice." Citizensvoice "Since forming in 1998, Breaking Benjamin's pummeling alt-rock has earned heavy airplay on modern rock radio." Billboard Well, Jacedc, we normally use sub-genres of sub-genres in articles. Sometimes, it's better to be more specific, like in this case, because while they are described as alternative rock, they are more specifically labelled alternative metal and post-grunge by many reliable sources, as shown in the table above. As an example, it's kind of like a pop rock band being more specifically described as power pop or an electronic rock band being more specifically described as dance-rock. In that case, we either list both or just list the more specific genre. And after searching through some sources on Google for all 4 genres, I'm finding more publications from WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES labeling them as both alternative metal and post-grunge (as well as hard rock) than alternative rock. Thanks for the sources, Myxomatosis57, but some of these are actually already cited in the article's "Musical style and lyrics" section, along with others. I went ahead and added more sources to your table though. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I'll ping both of you. @Jacedc and Myxomatosis57:. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, we use sub-genres of sub-genres in the article, but not the infobox. As I said, both the infobox and the lead section is for broad, generalized, summarizing information. More specific information is saved for the sections down below since they can use citations and further elaborations. Especially since the sub-genres are not only disputed but growing to be too big a number. When the sub-genre list is growing too big in the infobox, I'd say it's better to remove two (post-grunge alt-metal) than just remove one (alt rock, which is the parent genre of the former two anyway). It's not about sources as much as it's about the way articles are supposed to be structured. And yes, I'm not disputing that there are plenty of reliable sources calling them alt-metal and post-grunge, I know that's what they are, and I'm absolutely fine with that. What I'm not fine with is using them in the infobox when both can be consolidated into one accurate parent label (alt rock). Jacedc (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC) And while I appreciate the long list of sources, it's kind of unnecessary: There are already a ton of those sources in the article, and some of the genres listed (such as hard rock) are missing a lot of sources (as I said before, Billboard, Rolling Stone, USA Today, Loudwire, IGN, and Entertainment Weekly are all calling them hard rock). Jacedc (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Agreed on all grounds. As I was requesting yesterday, what is lost if 1 or preferably 2, are removed, conceptually? For example, let's say we were talking about Linkin Park, and the 2 genre listed were alternative rock and rap rock. It would be a bad idea to remove "rap rock" because rap is a big part of their sound. Conversely, I fail to see what is lost conceptually, if "post-grunge" was removed from the infobox. What message is lost, that wouldn't be still covered by alt metal and hard rock? Nothing. Note: Just an example - I'm okay with removing a different set of 2. They're all kind of interchangeable. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Exactly, Serge. Post-grunge and alt-metal are practically synonymous and rather dubious in the larger scheme things, especially when we have alternative rock as a valid label. And as the template documentation guideline describes, we should aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop). But I don't think all four are interchangeable. Hard rock and alternative rock are direct subgenres of rock, whereas post-grunge and alternative metal are subgenres of alternative rock. Jacedc (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Actually, we use sub-genres of sub-genres in infoboxes all the time. Since more sources state the specific genres, those should be the ones in the infobox. And as pointed out before, we source genres due to disputes in the first place, and now that has been done, so we should put more WP:WEIGHT on alternative metal and post-grunge than alternative rock. Also, keep in mind that not listing them there may confuse readers, due to them being referred by those genres all the time. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC) It doesn't really matter what "we do all the time" when the template documentation says to aim for generality. Alternative metal + post grunge = alternative rock. In other words, those two labels can be consolidated into one label, since listing both of them is redundant. As I said, it's not about sources. It's about the way an article is structured. It's the same logic as the lead section. Jacedc (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC) And I'm not buying the "it may confuse readers" argument: If it does, they can go to further sections or click on the alternative rock link. Besides, we shouldn't concern ourselves with what we think the users will think before we consider what's best for the article. Jacedc (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC) "Aiming for generality" is more of template suggestion than a policy or guideline, and is more ideal for when artists cover a wide variety of genres. We have many GA and FA music articles that lists sub-genres of sub-genres in infoboxes. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC) I still haven't seen explanation on what message is lost in removal of these redindant genre, just a silly assumption about readers getting "confused" that not every genre is listed. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)  Like Jacedc (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC) And who gets to decide which guidelines set at the documentation are followed and not followed? I'd say it still applies here, regardless of whether or not it's a policy/official guideline, because it represents consensus that has already been established. As I said, alt metal and post grunge can be consolidated into one label, and that is alt rock. And "that's what we do on other articles" doesn't trump the arguments I've already made. Jacedc (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC) The message that would be lost is what they are commonly known as at glance. I fail to see how they are redundant. None of the three genres I propose to be listed are even sub-genres of each other. Well, the post-grunge article suggest it's a sub-genre of hard rock as well, but it's more known as a sub-genre of alternative rock. And if you see the talk page for that template, there's no real consensus on how to apply that template. That's why a suggestion to limit genres to a maximum of 4 was later added there. WP:DUEWEIGHT also trumps that template suggestion anyway. Kokoro20 (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC) What they are commonly known as at a glance? Uh, that would be the broader genres. "At a glance" suggests breadth/generality. No message would be lost by combining two redundant genres into one (AM + PG = AR/HR). And they're redundant because they're both trivial, interchangeable sects of subgenres of rock music. And as Serge stated before, DUEWEIGHT doesn't help your argument. And as I've said before, it's not about sources, it's about the way an article is structured. The lead section/infobox is for generality/summarization, the rest of the article is for cited elaborations. Jacedc (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC) The more specific genres, because more source state them. And that is still summarizing them, because that's what they are known as. I don't know about you, but I would rather stick with the more specific labels. I fail to see how three genres would make the infobox appear that big or anything. We don't need to generalize that much. Kokoro20 (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC) It just doesn't make sense to me to list both alternative metal and post grunge, because when combined they both mean both alternative rock and hard rock. It's about consolidation of redundant labels. And you keep citing UNDUEWEIGHT but you must not be seeing this: It's not about the sources, it's about the way an article is structured. The lead section and infobox is for generalized/summarizing information, while the rest of the article is for cited elaborations. Jacedc (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC) (And please don't interpret any hostility from the bold text, I did that for emphasis to make sure you haven't missed it for the third or fourth time.) Jacedc (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Also, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's basically Wikipedia's "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" policy. We don't need to add everything under the sun to every article just because it can be sourced. Sources are necessary for inclusion, but they are not a guarantee of inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, that's why I suggested to remove alternative rock instead. The other three are too well-sourced to keep out of the infobox, and we still aren't adding everything here. And that is summarizing what they are known as. I don't know about you, but this discussion seems to be going nowhere right now. Shouldn't we just wait for others to comment now? Kokoro20 (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Why would we remove alt rock when it means the same thing as when alt metal and post grunge are combined? Alt metal + post grunge = alt rock and hard rock. It's about redundancy moreso than anything else. And I welcome anyone else's comments, but I don't mind repeating myself until all arguments are considered and addressed. Jacedc (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC) And I understand that alt metal and post-grunge are well-sourced. I understand that loud and clear, I'm not disputing that. They have a lot of sources. But so does alternative rock, and as I said before, alternative rock is a parent genre of post-grunge and alternative metal. Generality/summarization is what we're aiming for in an infobox, just as when we're dealing with the lead section. All it's meant to be is an introductory/summary. Jacedc (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Just for an example, look at the lead right now: "Breaking Benjamin is an American rock band founded in 1998 by Benjamin Burnley in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania". It doesn't say Breaking Benjamin is an American alternative metal/post-grunge/alternative rock/hard rock band, because that would be ridiculous. And that isn't an infraction of DUEWEIGHT. Jacedc (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Because alternative metal and post-grunge are more specific in describing them, so they really don't "mean the same thing". Also keep in mind that alternative metal is also a sub-genre of heavy metal, and we don't have that listed. Same with how post-grunge is also a sub-genre of grunge. Yes, I can understand for that lead, because it's not well-structured. But for the infobox, we can be more specific, as we often are, and doesn't look as bad as it would for the lead. Kokoro20 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Post-grunge isn't a subgenre of grunge. Post-grunge describes music that comes after the grunge era and was directly influenced by grunge, but it's not a subgenre of grunge. The post-grunge article actually says it's a subgenre of hard rock and alternative rock. To me it makes much sense to nix post-grunge, as it's already doubly covered by two of the genres already listed. And while alternative metal is yes, a subgenre of heavy metal, as it relates to Breaking Benjamin it's more of a subgenre of alternative rock than heavy metal. Breaking Benjamin isn't Korn, afterall. Jacedc (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC) And we don't need to be more specific. Specificity, i.e. exclusivity, isn't what we're looking for. And what do you mean the lead isn't well-structured? It's well-structured. I can't conceive of any other lead that would make it to where mentioning all four labels would be at all appropriate. Jacedc (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Well, I don't know. I just sometimes see it being considered a sub-genre of grunge. And if it's a sub-genre for of those, it can argued that covers the alternative rock part with hard rock in the infobox. Just like with listing alternative metal would cover the heavy metal part. No, I said the lead wouldn't be well-structured if it stated all those genres in the first sentence. They look better in the infobox. As it stands, my vote for the genre listing would be alternative metal, post-grunge and hard rock. Kokoro20 (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC) And my !vote (if it comes down to that) would be to consolidate alt metal and post-grunge into one label, listing it as hard rock and alternative rock (hard rock first since it has slightly more sources from much more popular/reliable websites.) Jacedc (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC) My vote would be for "post-grunge, alternative metal and hard rock." These three appear to have more weight in terms of number of sources. Also I don't see a point in consolidating alternative metal and post-grunge into hard/alternative rock since a massive number of sources has already described the band as post-grunge. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC) It seems that the only one we all agree on is hard rock. I feel like we should take the WP:FA Smashing Pumpkins approach, where just one is listed in the infobox, and the rest is covered in a section about their sound, like this. It wouldn't be "confusing" at all - the "musical styles" section is a logical place for the reader to look if they want to see more about their sound. I've maintained the article for years and its worked fine; there's genre warring, sure, but no one's "confused". Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Agree with Serge. And the point of consolidation is because alternative metal and post-grunge are both sub-genres of alternative rock, so it just doesn't make sense to also have alternative rock alongside both of those. So my debate with Kokoro is which one made more sense to get rid of: two redundant, dubious sub-sub-genres, or one legitimate, direct sub-genre of rock. As I said before, it's not about the sources. It's about article structure. In the lead we say Breaking Benjamin is an American rock band, despite the fact that there are many sources which go into specificity. It's the same for the infobox. We don't need to specify. Both the infobox and the lead section is for generalized/summarized information, then the following sections can elaborate upon that and use citations. Anyway, I concur with Serge's proposal and just list hard rock. We can go into more detail in the musical style sections. Jacedc (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC) And another reason it's not about the sources is because there are buttloads of sources for all genres. And we could keep finding more and more into forever, it wouldn't change anything. You could find ten examples for one genre and I could find double that for another genre, and we could keep going. Jacedc (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Yeah, we all agree on hard rock, but I highly disagree with limiting the genres to just that, as Breaking Benjamin are also widely known as some type of alternative rock (most often post-grunge) and some type of metal (most often alternative metal). My vote stands for all the reasons I explained before. Yes, the infobox shouldn't contain excessive information, but it should also be accurate and reflect sourced content in the prose, and that proposal would be too limiting, even for the infobox. They are more cited as sub-genres of alternative rock than alternative rock itself. Regarding the argument about Smashing Pumpkins, they are pretty much only widely cited as alternative rock, unlike Breaking Benjamin with hard rock. Kokoro20 (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Having just hard rock and alternative rock would be accurate because alternative rock encompasses both post-grunge and alt metal. Jacedc (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Maybe, but it would be more accurate to be specific, and it reflects the sources better than just alternative rock, as the infobox is also for sourced content in the article. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC) It wouldn't necessarily be more accurate to be specific. I know you'd personally prefer to be more specific, but as I said, the lead section and infobox is not for specificity but summarization/generalization, because we can't/don't/shouldn't use citations. I don't think alternative rock fails to reflect what the sources say: there are just as many sources for alt rock as there is for others, and as I said before, alternative rock encompasses the other genres. Jacedc (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC) The infobox should have at least some kind of specification though. If not, we would just be stating that their origins are from the United States, rather than also listing the country and city or only listing the band's current members, as a couple examples. I also feel it's more helpful to the readers to know what they are considered at glance, without being too general or too excessive. Readers tend to pay more attention to leads and infoboxes than the rest of the article, you know. That's why we use them to summarize the article contents. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Well, the infobox guideline says to aim for generality when it comes to the genre. If you want to contest that, that's fine, but you'll have to give more substantial arguments than assuming users might get confused or saying they shouldn't have to read the rest of the article to figure out something as dubious and subjective as genres. Jacedc (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC) And as for the other parameter examples, that's all solid, factual, invariable information. That information isn't going to change, isn't subject to any debate, etc. Jacedc (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Wait. Template:Infobox musical artist says to keep genres within the 2–4 range. Since this is such a big dispute, how about we just keep all of them? I can see Serge's point in that four is a bit much for Breaking Benjamin, but it seems as though we can't really reach an agreement on which ones to remove. Jacedc (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, I tried pointing that out before. It does that to try to give more clarity for the "generality" suggestion. I'm totally fine with just keeping them all. I only voted to remove alternative rock, because we were discussing on what genre(s) should be removed. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Well I guess if the infobox guideline says four genres are generalized enough, then it's good enough for me. In which case, I suppose I'd be okay with removing alternative rock since it's a parent genre of two genres already listed. I somehow overlooked the 2–4 recommendation. I read "aim for generality" and applied that relative to what we already have, but if what we already have doesn't exceed the guideline anyway then that's fine. Jacedc (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Can I assume that's settled then? I'd now like to talk about the arrangement of genres. I'd say, for the infobox, "Hard rock  · post-grunge  · alternative metal" (hard rock first since it's the broader genre and has more popular sources, then post-grunge second because at first glance it has more sources than alt metal). Then for the musical style section, since alt rock is still listed there and is the parent genre, something along the lines of Breaking Benjamin's musical style has been described as hard rock and alternative rock, more specifically post-grunge and alternative metal. Thoughts? Jacedc (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC) I would rather just keep alternative rock, but if we must remove something, that should be it. I had already swapped the genres before you posted this. And yes, that would be good for the musical style section. I guess this is pretty much settled now. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Finally. :) After a day or so I think it'd be a good idea to close this conversation and put a hide template around it (as I did with the redirect discussions) since it's so big and consensus has been established (I guess? Unless anyone else has any opinions.) Jacedc (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Feel free to do that. Since consensus is now established, I don't think we really need more input from other editors. I'll let the editors I notified that consensus has been established. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)  Done Jacedc (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

No RS for Live EP

I've been looking tirelessly for any reliable source regarding Breaking Benjamin's Live EP, the one that apparently came with limited editions of We Are Not Alone. Unfortunately I have not been able to find a single thing. Not even a hint. The only places that mention it are pirate websites for downloading and places like Discogs and other user-contributed websites. The only two options I see is citing the EP's liner notes with {{cite liner notes}} or just removing any mention of it. Thoughts? (ping Serge). Jacedc (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been looking since you tagged me, as I was already in source-hunting mode for a different article, and I couldn't find anything either. I've redirected the article to the WANA article, as I couldn't even find an RS to confirm its existence, let alone notability. Personally, unless we scrounge up something, I'd just remove it outright, it seems like a tiny, unimportant part of their career that no one else bothered to report on. (Its just a handful of live tracks that all showed up on a prior studio release.) I'll leave it up to you, though obviously a GA-reviewer will likely have a problem with it in its current state. (And wouldn't be likely to glaze over it now that you've started a discussion on it here, haha.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As the original tagger.. no opposition here. Яehevkor ✉ 20:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

 Removed Thanks for your input, guys. Jacedc (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Formation, inclusion of Breaking Benjamin 1.0 members

I'm thinking that we should omit anyone in the 1998 version of Breaking Benjamin from the timeline/band members section. Burnley has consistently described this as a different band, and it played entirely different music. If you look in the history section, that is reflected, by saying "Breaking Benjamin was a band of Burnley's formed in 1998 [. . .] This band broke up [. . .] later formed Plan 9 [. . .] renamed Breaking Benjamin like the previous band." One could say that the same argument applies with the recently-reformed lineup, but the difference here being that 1: it's the same songs/catalog, 2: same record label/other personnel, 3: Ben has stated that the band never broke up and never really even reformed since it's still mainly him. Tagging Serge and Ko. Jacedc (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, relevant source is here: "Not many people know this but the band started as Plan 9. There was band called Breaking Benjamin that was nothing like this Breaking Benjamin. We weren't heavy, we played Weezer songs, we played Beatles songs...we played softer music. That band broke up, disbanded, but we had this roll of stickers and I got a new group of guys together and it was called Plan 9. And people kept calling it "Planet 9," and we're like "no, Plan 9 like Plan 9 From Outer Space," and eventually I was like "you know, I got this whole roll of Breaking Benjamin stickers from this other band that I was in. Let's just call it Breaking Benjamin." So that's how it came to be. I already had a roll of stickers." Jacedc (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been a day, I have a valid rationale and nothing better to do, so this is  Done. Feel free to bring this back up so we can discuss if anyone wants to change it back. User:Jacedc (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I read this but forgot to reply. I support your decision though. It makes sense, and will de-clutter things some too. Sergecross73 msg me 01:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Breaking Benjamin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 03:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry this has languished so long. I will get to this quite soon, as it is currently third on my "to review" list. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! User:Jacedc (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• I think that it should be "the first lineup" not "the first version"

I'm assuming you mean for me to replace "the original version"? If so,  Done User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• comma between "consistent" and "with"

 Done User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• How is "formulaic" a tendency--is this a critical designation?

It is, though not critical as in condemnatory, rather, critical as in analytical. Multiple authors have observed a tendency towards a formula within Burnley's songwriting and musical style. User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• probably should be "a band named" Plan 9

 Done User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why was the earlier band not considered the first lineup of the band we know today?

Quote: "but played "softer music" such as Weezer and The Beatles and was "nothing like" subsequent lineups. (Book 2015)". See also: Talk:Breaking_Benjamin#Formation, inclusion of Breaking Benjamin 1.0 members. This received support as it made more sense than including them, it's supported by a first party source/quote, and nicely declutters the article. User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your chronology in the first paragraph of the Formation section is a bit off--you start with the Plan 9 era and then go back to it after mentioning a bunch of other stuff.

 Done I removed "Although Breaking Benjamin was originally formed as a band named Plan 9 in 1999, "

• "Jonathan "Bug" Price was credited on bass, replacing Davoli" Why? Was he changed out? If so, indicate this.

Well yes, he was changed out, per "replacing". I can't really go into further detail beyond the fact that he was credited on projects afterwards because of a lack of reliable sources. User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• You still seem to be flipping around with the names "Plan 9" "Lifer" and "Breaking Benjamin", leaving me even more confused regarding the chronology.

I see. Well Strangers With Candy, a.k.a. Lifer, was a separate band formed by the remaining members of the very first Breaking Benjamin, entirely separate from Plan 9, which was the first name taken up by what is now known today as Breaking Benjamin. That said, after further thought, mentioning SWC/Lifer is somewhat inconsequential, so I removed it. Hopefully it's better now. The paragraph's chronology is now as follows: 1998 Breaking Benjamin → Plan 9 → current Breaking Benjamin User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Saturate garnered positive reception, Jason Taylor…" after the comma, put "with"

 Done User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Link to Tool.

 Not done per WP:LINKSTYLE: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." Tool is linked later on in the article. User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• The sentence about the composition of songs for We Are Not Alone should probably go before the release.

 Done I refactored this paragraph entirely. The chronology should be a bit more logical now. User:Jacedc (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• "terminated him, citing chemistry issues." Please make this clearer and less informal.

It's hard to clarify when there's a lack of clarity in the sources. Should I put quotes around "chemistry issues"? User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I changed However, Burnley later called Hummel and terminated him, citing chemistry issues. to However, Burnley later called Hummel and terminated him, citing chemistry issues. That's about as clear as we can get. User:Jacedc (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Is there a file that could go in the Phobia section?

I once had an audio file though with it the article was tagged for having an excessive amount of fair use files. I will try to find a free use image, though. User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I primarily mean a file of the band performing or something. It's okay if nothing. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Yeah I looked around quite extensively when I first wrote the article and looked around some recently, and I couldn't find a freely-licensed photo. User:Jacedc (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Once again, let's talk about the organization of this section and what order they should go in.

Okay. User:Jacedc (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• What were some of the main praise and criticism of Phobia? Put it in the same sentence as "moderate critical reception"

Several quotations from some of the main album reviews follow "moderate critical reception". I don't know what you mean here, could you please elaborate? User:Jacedc (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Just for an example, even if it's not true, I mean something like "it received moderate critical reception, with praise going to Burnley's vocals and the album's lyrical content but criticism focusing on repetitive musical content". Obviously, I have no idea if that's accurate, but where possible, add sentences like this. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, like a summarization of the praises/criticisms... Will do. User:Jacedc (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just echoing the organization sentiment for all the albums.

Okay, I'll see what I can do about this. I was thinking about this last night and wrote up an alternative version to the WANA section, I'll work on the rest of them too. User:Jacedc (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternative version implemented, might wanna re-read the first paragraph here. User:Jacedc (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Same for Phobia's section. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I like it a lot. It flows better. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• It should be "mixed reviews, with"

Where? User:Jacedc (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• I really like the new ordering of the sections.

Thanks, me too! User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Should probably be "therefore" not "thereby"

Good catch. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• "AllMusic's James Monger stating the album "feels a lot like their first three." Is this a positive review? Negative? Neutral? No matter what, add a bit more.

 Done Added that it was a positive review. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• The last statement before the "Hiatus" section is that Burnley dispelled rumors that the band had broken up--is there a missing piece of information here?

 Done Elaborated. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would include a bit more about the "Blown Away" stuff. From the fair use rationale, it states "Provide audio of a highly-contentious remix of a song which caused the firing and suing of two long-time members of the band Breaking Benjamin." This sounds interesting--can you elaborate on that in the article?

The entire lawsuit was about "Blow Me Away" as well as the compilation album, though that was unclear in the article so I elaborated a bit on that. Hopefully it's clearer now. Also I moved the bit about the court case being settled and Szeliga leaving the band in the Hiatus and Shallow Bay section, where it needs to be to act as a conclusion to that section. Hopefully it reads clearer and more thorough now. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Put a period after "commonly noted for its consistency."

 Done User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of the "musical style" part, replace one of the "describing" or "described" with a different verb to avoid repetition.

 Done Replaced the second "describes" with "characterizes". User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Breaking Benjamin's live sound has corresponded with lineup arrangements." What does this mean?

As you read later in the section, the quality of their performance changed according to their lineup arrangement. This sentence is basically a segue into this section, though technically could be seen as repetitive, so I'll remove it if need be. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• The timeline makes the width of the page expand for some reason--is there any way to change that?

Really? I did change the timeline quite a bit but I kept the width property the same. I knocked it down 200px though, hopefully it's better now. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• If you're going to use the reference format you're doing, make sure refs 42 and 43 use it as well.

 Done User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• For original pages that are not dead, why exactly are you including Wayback Machine links?

When I first started rewriting the article, I noticed a lot of important links were defunct so I kind of made a habit early on in providing archive links wherever possible. I included |dead-url=no for the non-dead ones so it should be fine. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Do you think a "see also" section would be helpful?

Sure, I don't see why not. What links were you thinking of? User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, looking at other GA band articles, there's not anything that would be appropriate here, and some FAs like Radiohead don't even have a "See also" section. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jacedc: Okay, I'm done! I'm really having trouble finding a lot really "wrong" with this article. It's very impressive, especially considering that a lot of peoples' first GANs don't go too well! Nice job and I will be happy to pass once everything is cleared up. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you very much, Johanna! :) I should be able to fix the things mentioned above here shortly. Your time is very much appreciated! User:Jacedc (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Johanna: All done! :) I left some comments above responding to your inquiries, but other than that, I addressed all of the in-article issues. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jacedc: Replied partially inline. For everything I did not reply inline too, it is okay. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Johanna: Okay, I summarized the criticisms for Phobia, and replied inkind above. User:Jacedc (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jacedc: Wonderful job! Pass. If it's not too much trouble, could you review one of my GANs in the television section? :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 23:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Timeline

User:ICommandeth, it has become clear to me which one of us is the lesser experienced editor, thus I will be the one to initiate civil discourse—incidentally, the way this type of situation is supposed to be handled. Your opinion that the old timeline looks better is subjective, and your corresponding edits to reflect this are considered disruptive. If you would like to change it, you first have to acknowledge that the burden is on you to acquire consensus if you are to change something on a matter with which currently at least two editors disagree. Granted, I was the individual who unilaterally redesigned the timeline way back when I first completely rewrote the article, arguably with subjective design taste, but this was a bold edit for which there was no disapproval at the time. It had since then been reviewed for good article status, and the reviewer nor anyone else had any qualms with the new timeline (aside from a minor spacing issue which was subsequently fixed). I know there are a few editors who regularly watch this article, Serge being one of them, none of whom had any objections, therefore consensus was established, and has long since been what we go by. Again, if you want to change it, you will have to acquire consensus that trumps the existing consensus. There is no policy, guideline, or even documentation that dictates the style of the timeline. In fact, I've seen a large variety of different timeline styles; it would appear as though there is no cohesive style across any articles other than the more popular music articles. Furthermore, the status quo and consensus from other articles does not apply everywhere you go. And certainly do not try to force change by edit warring. As you have been warned, if that goes on any further, you will be blocked from editing. Thanks, User:Jacedc (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Jace covers this all correctly and in the same manner I would. If there is no established standard, both are acceptable, and the only argument for changing it is personal preference, then I see no reason to change it from the way that it was when it was passed to WP:GA status. I'm reminded of the guideline that WikiProject Video Games has at WP:STOPCHANGINGIT. While that deals with people needlessly changing the cover art of video games, the same premise applies: if it's already in an acceptable state, don't waste time changing it between other acceptable states. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You know, while I don't necessarily have an opinion on which one looks better, I think the timeline should stay the old way as it stays consistent with other articles' timelines. I don't think it would be correct to have one outlier, because I believe every article should have the same legend for any given role. One who might read Wikipedia often may have trouble understanding the timeline at first, having to take a much longer time to understand it. If we go back to the old colors, roles will be much easier to recognize without taking much time to look. Secondly, if we go around changing other articles to this style, others are sure to disagree, that being for a variety of possible reasons. In my opinion, it would be easier to just leave it the old way. True, this is a slightly subjective response, but hey, so was the way you built this new timeline. (If I was that GA reviewer, I would've said something about it.) dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 21:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I do wish that someone would create a discussion on this at one of the music related WikiProjects to get a consensus on this, as this isn't the first time that arguments have arisen over people making changes to their personally preferred version, as if some consensus were already in place. I suppose I could try to do so, though I've always hoped someone with a little more interest in them would do it - I don't do much other than revert vandalism or bad judgement calls on them... Sergecross73 msg me 22:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

hello everyone, it is me, ICommandeth. After reading this post, I just want to say sorry for all of this, as this hasn't been the first time I have pulled this stunt before. On pink floyds page, I tried to add a timeline to the page, completely disregarding the fact that the page had looked fine before. This lead to an argument on pink floyds talk page. During the entire time, I bitched and moaned about how it should be there. However, one user opened up a pink Floyd members page, ending the argument. So I just want to say sorry for what I've done, because it was immature and not what the community expects. I still wish this page had the timeline I made, so I ask nicely and politely if we can change it to this: If you want it to stay the same that's fine, but please increase the width of it at least, cause the bass and drum key glitched into eachother.

Ugh, here, an IP altered ICommandeth's suggestion below. Not sure if that was helpful or detrimental in his proposal. Ugh, this is why we need a standard way of doing this. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, ICommandeth. And I do see Danny's reasoning for keeping the timeline as it was, since this is mostly what other music articles have done for a long time (although I have seen articles with different styles as well). I agree with Serge in that there should be a formal discussion somewhere on a music WikiProject to establish a consensus, though as of right now there's nothing other than the fact that it's what other articles do. Personally I believe this article should remain a test/example case in the event of an official discussion, as I do still believe that the new version looks better. The old version looks like it was done in MS Paint on a Windows 98 PC, and the colors are too stark. Plus, with the bars being so thin there's a lot of unnecessary spacing between them, and if you were to simply remove that space then the bars would look too scrunched up. So, making them thicker was my fix to that (just so everyone knows). And then I think duller colors are less offensive to the eye, though that is just my opinion. Thanks for engaging in the conversation, ICommandeth. :) User:Jacedc (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh and looking at the timeline below, Aaron Fink and Jasen Rauch should have the same colors. User:Jacedc (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Timeline

The discussion is certainly happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Create Member Section/Timeline Standards, I invite you all to join. Shout out to Jacedc and Sergecross73. Please feel free to join and invite anyone else who you think may care. I really hope we reach standard soon. –DLManiac (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. This creates so much conflict, hopefully they can come to a standard... Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, ditto what Serge said. :P User:Jacedc (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I made some edits. Although I do agree that this should use the more common format (Similar as to suggested above, but not quite), there were some things that had to be done:

• Width 800, remove pointless margins (The graphic comes out nearly the same size as it was after I cut off 65 px worth of whitespace that didn't need to be there and made room for 65 px more graph.
• The time axis was cramped with a 1 year scale, so I've implemented a 2 year scale
• Added auto updating end date. No reason for this not to be there, it eliminates violations of WP:BALL as well as saves a lot of pointless edits of people coming in to update the date all the time.
• Yellow--> Pink for backing vocals. this is firstly the more common color for BVs. Secondly, as you guys are complaining about red being to stark, yellow is definitely too stark, so pink fixes that.

—DLManiac (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternative rock and POV-oriented wording

Alternative rock was kept out of the infobox for a minor problem of redundancy while the genre is clearly one of Breaking Benjamin's main genres. It's a poor argument, as one can easily find more sources for the genre, and it's a problem of due and undue weigth as well. Regarding the first sentence under the musical style section, "primarily classified as" should logically apply to hard rock, as there are more sources for this genre than the three other genres, but it wouldn't make any sense in this case. Moreover that's not what the sources say, but that's what 2-3 editors think about how genres are linked together, which goes against WP:STICKTOSOURCE and proves there's a problem of synthesis. It's also a problem of consistency, which can clearly be followed in this case. Anyway "alternative rock" should be mentioned in the infobox and the sentence should be rewritten as "Breaking Benjamin's musical style is classified as hard rock, alternative rock, post-grunge and alternative metal." or "Breaking Benjamin's musical style has been described as hard rock, alternative rock, post-grunge and alternative metal." Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Why is it you believe its necessary for 4 extremely similar genre be used to describe such a straightforward sound? This isn't some genre-bending Radiohead or Linkin Park type band. As the article states, and Dark Before Dawn mentions, the band is literally known for not mixing it up when it comes to their sound. I don't know why you need so many redundant terms to call a blade of grass green. Conceptually, I don't understand what would be missing by not having alt-rock in the infobox. Can you elaborate conceptually? Sergecross73 msg me 13:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problem about listing the 4 genres together and, let's be honest, it doesn't matter if the genres are quite close between them. I don't see any reason not to give as much weigth for this genre as for the other ones and not to keep a perfect consistency between the infobox and the musical style section (which is perfectly possible for a band like Breaking Benjamin, just saying). Alternative metal is included in the infobox even if one source says the band doesn't really belong to the genre (NB : I don't disagree with the genre and that's fine it appears in the infobox) but then alternative rock should be included too. Synthwave.94 (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That does not answer my question. You haven't explained why its conceptually necessary, or what's lacking with it gone. You're so stuck on your Wiki-alphabet soup quoting that it doesn't seem you have an actual reason...? Sergecross73 msg me 17:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

What's lacking is a consistency between the infobox and the musical style section : alternative rock is kept out of the infobox just because of a minor redundancy, while it has as many sources as the other genres (except hard rock). Therefore the genre is not given the due weigth it should be received. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

As previously discussed, there is no sort of consensus, precedent, or guideline that says that the infobox and style section need to be consistent. Additionally, if what you're suggesting was such a violation of UNDUE weight, then we'd also have to open up the article with nonsense like "Breaking Benjamin is an American hard rock, alternative rock, alternative metal, post-grunge band from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, founded in 1999 by lead singer and guitarist Benjamin Burnley and drummer Jeremy Hummel." out of fear of genre misrepresentation. Luckily, that's not how it works. Uniformity between these aspects are not necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Beyond that, I'm still only getting misguided policy regurgitation from you - you still haven't shown conceptually what is missing. What exactly are we missing without it there? For example, to just label Linkin Park as alternative rock would be a shortcoming to explaining to the reader their sound. It fails to mention aspects of their sound that were crucial to what they are - they were one of the biggest bands of the nu metal movement. Their music contained rapping, screaming, heavy downtuned guitars, and electronic elements not commonly found in just "alternative rock". Compare this to our situation - what aspect of Breaking Benjamin is the reader missing if they only see hard rock, alt metal, and post-grunge, that alternative rock doesn't convey? I'm drawing a blank, and that's why this seems so unnecessary to me. Sergecross73 msg me 19:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not about what's missing or what's not missing, it's about the weigth given to all genres and the consistency throughout the article, as well as the respect of what sources say. Sources don't say alternative metal is a subgenre of alternative rock, they say Breaking Benjamin is an alternative rock band or is an alternative metal band, but they don't say the band is associated with alternative rock and more specifically alternative metal. The link between genres is your personal knowledge, bu it's not relevent at all here. You're synthesizing infos without taking care about giving the same weigth to all genres. Sticking to sources without modifying what they say is the key idea. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia, and you can't explain what you're trying to convey to the reader? This is rather concerning. You shouldn't place "Wiki-lawyering" over communicating ideas to the reader. We're writing an encyclopedia, not solving a math problem. Sergecross73 msg me 22:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

In the the version I would like to keep, it's still communating something to the reader, but respecting what the sources say not distorting them to suit some editors POV. That's the whole difference. Respecting it and a simple matter of consistency is clearly not hard to do in this case, trust me. Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Trust you? You can't even explain the conceptual ideas that you're pushing for. And your who argument hinges on a concept of "consistency" that has no backing in precedent or guideline. It's nothing more than your opinion. Sergecross73 msg me 02:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. It's only giving the due weigth to alternative rock and not keeping out of the infobox and rewording a sentence to respect what sources say. Alternative rock is as representative of the band's overall sound as the other genres, and removing it just because of your personal feeling makes no sense in this case. The reader who would see alternative rock in the musical style section with as much references as post-grunge and alternative metal would probably wonder why the genre is not included in the infobox. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Per the opening sentence at post-grunge - post-grunge is a variant of alt rock. Everyone seems to understand this but you. By your logic, should we also add a fifth genre, rock, because people are going to see Alternative rock and wonder why its one and not the other? Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if post-grunge is a variant of alternative rock or not because that's not what the sources : they say Breaking Benjamin is an alternative rock band or Breaking Benjamin is a post-grunge band (again learn what WP:STICKTOSOURCE means). Rock is obviously too general in this case and there would be too much redundancy (with hard rock, alternative rock and post-grunge). Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Where exactly are you drawing the line at "too much redundancy"? That's the same argument I've been throwing at you. Why is it acceptable for your argument, but not mine? Why is "rock" too redundant, but "alt rock" also not too redundant? The problem is that you're picking and choosing how you want to apply things. Like how we somehow need the infobox and style sections to match, but not the lead. Or how adding "rock" would be redundant", but adding "alt rock", somehow not redundant? I fail to see the difference, seeing how many sources surely just call them a rock band. So now, not only can you not explain conceptually the idea you're trying to convey the reader, you also can't explain where you draw the line on the approaches you want either. (Also, stop linking me to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. I've been here for 7 years and an admin for 3, I think I understand a basic concept like WP:OR. None of my argument hinges on original research.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Rock is a very general genre which is most of the time not included in the infobox because it is meaningless. This is the reason the reason why we rely on more specific subgenres such as alternative rock. Also Template:Infobox musical artist#genre says you can "preferably use 2-4" genres in the infobox which proves there's nothing wrong about including alternative rock along with the other genres. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternative rock is also extremely broad though. It could be sourced to describe virtually any rock band that has emerged since the 1980s/90s. The rest of your argument falls within a "just because we can, doesn't mean we should", something again, strengthened by the fact that you can't even explain its value in the context of the actual information given to the reader. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Not keeping the four genres can confuse readers who don't see alternative rock in the infobox, but see it in the musical section section, and who then see through the sources that what the first sentence says is not even mentioned and that alternative rock is correctly sourced. Note that hard rock is also an extremly broad genre. If the info provided in the infobox should normally aim for generality then only hard rock and alternative rock should be kept because these two genres are more general than post-grunge and alternative metal. Can you see the problem caused by the removal of the genre now ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No, not at all. I've been maintains the Smashing Pumpkins article for years, and there has been minimal, if any, documentation of reader confusion regarding differences between the infobox and the style section. The article is busy, and has had its share of disputes, but this hypothetical confusion you speak of, has not been one of them. So no, I don't buy it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You can't compare the two bands. One is mainly for one specific genre, the other one is known for several genres. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, I would think a band known for many different styles would lead to more confusion. Also, I'm not sure how your hypothetical scenario is supposed somehow trump something I've experienced first-hand for years? My approach is seen across multiple WP:FAs with no problems. Your scenario of "confusion"...is unfounded. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Because "alternative rock" is one of Breaking Benjamin main genres and it would confuse readers not to see it in the infobox. Synthwave.94 (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

There hasn't been a single instance of confusion documented since 6 months ago, when we had the big genre discussion. It wasn't present in the infobox in the version of the article prior to the GA rewrite either, and no problems back then either. I'm sorry, but you're trying to provide solutions for "confusion" that has never existed. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

That's your personal view on the matter. I've been a reader of Wikipedia for several years and I know what I'm talking about. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No, that's my observation upon maintaining the article/talk page for the last 4-5 years. Can you point to any discussions that document this supposed confusion we're creating? Outside of the discussions in 2015, which came to a consensus to keep alt rock out of the infobox, I don't see anything regarding any documentation of any reader confusion on this matter. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Most readers obviously look at the infobox first without taking a look at the rest of the article, or simply don't leave a feedback about the inconsistency you can find in articles like this one. It doesn't mean there's no problem at all. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This article receives about 1,000 views a day, and surely much more around times of album releases, lawsuits, etc. Its not an obscure article, it gets a fair amount of traffic. So I can't help but think its fishy, when you speak of this "confusion", when there hasn't been any documented here, let alone at the two prior WP:FA's I listed above. You, meanwhile, have provided zero instances of said confusion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said it was an obscure article. I just wanted to say most readers take a quick look at an article but few spend their times improving inconsistency problems and virtually none of them would waste their time commenting about this inconsistency. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

My point was that the article gets a lot of traffic, so you'd think at least one person would mention document their confusion - asking for clarification, proposing change, etc. No, the reason no one commented about inconsistency because its a non-issue. There's no guideline, policy, or consensus for enforcing such a concept. Its merely a personal preference of yours. Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact there's still a problem of consistency that you can't deny. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't deny it occurring, of course not, I just deny that it's a problem. Much like it's not a problem that all 4 genre aren't listed in the opening sentence. Consistency is necessary in either situation. Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Just realized I'm not the first one to realize there's a problem of weigth regarding genres in this article. Synthwave.94 (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

1. At no point does this link document a confusion about how not all genre are listed both in the infobox and the musical style section. Ironically, if you check the difs of the article's state at the time of those discussions, you'll see there's no musical style section in the article at all at that time.
2. That discussion is largely about whether or not "Alternative metal" was appropriate. This discussion took place in 2008. A new consensus formed in 2015. Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not about proving there was a problem of confusion, it is in order to prove you it's not the first time there's a problem of consistency in this article. Note that the alternative rock genre was in the infobox, along with multiple sources, at the time. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Im not denying that people have argued for/against various genre over the years. That's virtually every band article ever. I'm arguing against your idea of consistency between infobox and musical style section. If anything, your link just shows more of the typical progression that tends to occur - infoboxes get cluttered with lots of genre and references, and are often moved to style sections. Sergecross73 msg me 01:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Since there's a disagreement going on between two users, I'll go ahead and weigh in. I don't have a problem with the current wording in the musical style section. Sources in other relevant articles make it clear that alternative metal and post-grunge are subgenres of alternative rock and hard rock, so it's not really POV here. I wouldn't mind the addition of alternative rock, but I had previously just came to an agreement to list the sub-genres instead of only alternative rock and hard rock as a compromise. This is the third genre discussion we've had this year. I think we've had enough genre discussions for a while.

So, now we have one for alternative rock, one against it, and one indifferent. Kokoro20 (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why it is that some of these bands with the most straightforward sound have so many disagreements over genre... (Breaking Benjamin, Shinedown, Nickelback, etc. I wonder if Creed (band), Trapt or Puddle of Mudd are equally bad?) Sergecross73 msg me 02:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

In my years as an editor here and on various other wiki communities, I recognize this "it will confuse readers" argument quite well. For one thing, that argument is completely vague and conjectural, and is never supported by solid evidence. Furthermore, we should edit articles according to what's best for the article, not what may or may not "confuse" readers (as again, it's entirely conjectural). Readers aren't dumb.

And I've said this before and I'll say it again, I'm not at all a fan of a genre parameter in the infobox. I understand that it's really convenient, but sometimes, well, most times, convenience means a drop in quality. Here's why I say this: genres can be complex and require explanations. For example, we shouldn't list parent genres side-by-side with subgenres, because the average reader wouldn't understand that type of distinction. Moreover, in this case, alternative metal requires an explanatory footnote to point out something very very important. So why are we listing these things in an infobox as if it's just straightforward information with no nuance? Because of convenience.

If anything I'd still propose that we only list one genre, which would be the most cited genre, which would be hard rock. Not only does it have the most sources, but it's the most accurate cause it's the most broad. The infobox documentation even says to aim for greater generality, which was a point I argued in the genre discussion above.

Either way, no one has brought any persuasive arguments to the table that I (and I'm sure nor Serge) would be convinced would trump any preexisting consensus. All I've heard is a bunch of speculative, POV-oriented rambling from people who are for whatever reason hell-bent on fiddling with genres, which, incidentally, is one of the least crucial aspects of the article.

And I'm (unsurprisingly) with Serge in that I just don't understand what all the contention is about. Genres aren't this huge deal. I mean, you guys are aware of the fact that the musical style section goes far beyond just genres right? It actually describes their style, it doesn't just assign labels to them. In the grander scheme of things, genre labels are all pretty much the same once you get past subgenres of rock. The only real distinctions is geographic origins, which doesn't even apply in this case cause we have no RSs for it. User:Jacedc (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This is probably the first time I see so much rejection for a genre a band is well known for, just because of a minor redundancy. As the four genres are supported by a similar weigth by sources (and all accurately describe the band's sound) then why not simply listing the four genres in the infobox ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Redundancy. Lack of necessity. Etc. Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no "lack of necessity" in all of this. Synthwave.94 (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of your stance on it, "2 against, 1 for, 1 indifferent" is concretely not considered a consensus for inclusion, so your recent revert was very much so out of line. Per WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN, and WP:CONSENSUS, you are only to reinstate if you have found a consensus for inclusion. Until that point, it is not to be in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to stay neutral to this debate, but what I would like to point out is that they're considered alt rock by the categories listed for them. I believe it doesn't make sense for the infobox and cat-list not to match. I say either add alt rock to the infobox or remove that category. dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 17:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, they're still referred to as alt rock in the article, so I don't see it as an issue, but I do not care about the categories either way, so I'm fine with adjusting the categories in whichever way people feel the need to. Sergecross73 msg me 22:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

2 against ? I only see you, Sergecross73, as the only editor who disagrees about the inclusion. Note that, as Danny pointed out, it doesn't make sense to list Breaking Benjamin under the category "alternative rock groups from Pennsylvania" without even mentionning the genre in the infobox. Another proof there's no valid reason not to list the genre along with the three others. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Then change the damn categories. The heavy metal category needs to be removed, anyway. User:Jacedc (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:CATDEF says that categories must be verifiable (= sourced in the article). Hard rock, alternative rock, post-grunge and alternative metal are all mentioned and sourced under the musical style section, which means the categories "Alternative rock groups from Pennsylvania", "American alternative metal musical groups", "American hard rock musical groups" and "American post-grunge musical groups" shouldn't be removed from the article. However I suggest changing "Category:Heavy metal musical groups from Pennsylvania" into "Category:Rock music groups from Pennsylvania". And of course alternative rock should be restored in the infobox for a perfect consistency with the infobox. Synthwave.94 (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Even if you interpret all other responses as neutral, you'd still be the only one actively supporting inclusion yourself. Regardless, please familiarize yourself with WP:NOCONSENSUS. As is "no consensus = no change". In this scenario, you're the one advocating the change in the form of adding alt rock, when the prior consensus was against inclusion. No change is to be made. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Other editors who commented so far are neutral but it doesn't mean the article should stay the way it is, with a lack of consistency. A request for comment may prove you what I'm saying is not as stupid as you may think. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Synth, under that logic, we'd also add the Rock genre to the infobox to be consistent with the "Category:Rock music groups from Pennsylvania". There's no guideline or consensus that says the infobox must be consistent with the categories. In fact, I'd be directly opposed to that notion, since the infobox and musical style section have to work in tandem (with nuance) and not just straight-up consistent. There is an actual reason, as determined by pre-existing consensus, that in fact the infobox should not be consistent with the categories. As Serge said, no change is to be made to the article. User:Jacedc (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh and that's without mentioning that that only proves my point with the whole parent genre redundancy thing. Listing "alternative rock, post-grunge, alternative metal" is the same exact thing as listing "rock, hard rock, alternative rock". The latter two are just subgenres of the former, and are therefore entirely redundant and in fact goes against the "aim for generality" guideline. User:Jacedc (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The genre redundancy thing can be a tricky subject. Listing rock with subgenres is usually redundant (since the term is much of the time used to describe rock bands of any kind, rather than describing a band that's just traditional rock), but when it comes to a subgenre of another rock subgenre, it may not be redundant if a band is often described under both the parent genre and the subgenre in their own right. I do not agree with always leaving a genre out just because it might look a little redundant at glance, but I'm still remaining neutral over the addition of alternative rock per my previous comments.

As for the categories, I would keep them. I see no good reason to leave it out, just because the genre is left out in the infobox. At this point, it looks like it's time to drop it. Kokoro20 (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Rock is too general, Jacedc, and is most of the time not included in the infobox for rock groups. And no "alternative rock, post-grunge, alternative metal" is not the same as "rock, hard rock, alternative rock". In the first case, it would mean that the band plays alternative rock, as well as post-grunge and alternative metal. In the second case, it would mean that the band mainly plays standard rock, but is also known for playing hard rock and alternative rock. It's clearly not the same thing at all (and proves the link between genres is sometimes meaningless). However, in both cases, it aims for generality. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Kokoro20, it would rather start a request for comment so more people would comment about the matter. Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Kokoro, the reason we should remove the heavy metal category is because it's neither accurate nor sourced. Synth, I'm going to fact-check your sources here in a bit, but as you've been told multiple times, stop changing disputed content unless you have consensus to do so. As for the infobox, I second Kokoro's notion that it needs to be dropped. User:Jacedc (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Source checking, I've found no evidence of the notability nor reliability of the website "Renowned For Sound". Additionally, the cited article's author's credentials don't seem up to par. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RenownedForSound.com. I could be wrong on this one, but the burden of proof is on you, so I have removed it for now. And note that while you're free to keep adding sources, we could find a bunch of random links to support either genres, but hard rock has the most available, most reliable, most popular, and most reputable sources, etc. User:Jacedc (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, fair enough about the heavy metal category. I was actually talking about the alternative rock category though.

As for the reliability of Renowned for Sound, it has been brought up at WP:RSN before ([1]), and one person leaned towards it being reliable and another person leaned towards it being situational. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Renowned for Sound is a standard webzine which features numerous films, albums and singles reviews, so it's perfectly reliable. Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that's evidence of it being "perfectly reliable". From what I can tell there's no reason to say it's not reliable, but there's also no reason to say it is, the latter of which is, in and of itself, enough to call it unreliable. But since it's just one source among several for one genre label it's not that big of a deal, so I'll leave it for now. User:Jacedc (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2016

On November 3, 2004, a non-album single named "Blow Me Away" was released, to commercial success, ultimately going gold on November 24, 2015.[11] The song was featured in the 2004 video game Halo 2. On November 23, 2004, Breaking Benjamin released the So Cold EP, which features live versions of the songs "Away" and "Breakdown", a live acoustic version of "So Cold", and studio acoustic recordings of "Blow Me Away" and "Lady Bug".[23]

Traiman, Steve. "Marketplace: "Halo 2" Soundtrack Bolsters Game Push." Billboard - The International Newsweekly of Music, Video and Home Entertainment Nov 06 2004: 43,43, 45. ProQuest. Web. 19 June 2016 . Loyalopez (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand - isn't this word for word what is already in the article? What do you want changed? Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Alt metal note

About the one that says they're "not quite alternative metal." It talks about hip-hop leanings with alternative metal, and that's just not factually accurate. I believe the reviewer strongly implies he has been confused into thinking that nu metal and alternative metal are the same also factually inaccurate. Nu metal is just a newer, more successful spinoff of it, which does incorporate hip-hop. Yes, Korn has been cited as alternative metal, but not necessarily this kind. I think we should take this down because it is not representative of what the majority of sources classify the genre as. It would have no effect on the infobox. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• In regard to your comments about rapping and alt metal, the writer probably just meant that many bands that are labeled alt metal, also rap. (In addition to Korn as you mentioned, there's also Limp Bizkit, Linkin Park, Flaw (band), 311 (band), etc.) The whole scenario of yours is a bit speculative and WP:OR based too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• On the other side of things, I do think it has a big benefit in being in the article. Its a good way of addressing the fact that the band is often lumped in with the genre more due to being popular and similar sounding around the same time of popularity of the genre, despite not being the best "text book definition" example of the genre. It's handled similarly at Static X regarding nu metal, and I'd like to find something similar for A Perfect Circle and nu metal honestly, as they are similar scenarios. Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, it seems that Limp Bizkit is not alt metal. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 16:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Their article, which is properly sourced, says otherwise. I think your view on the genre is a little more narrow than your typical music critic/journalist. They seem to apply to just about every heavy band since 2000 that doesn't bust out guitar solos. Papa Roach is another one. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't see how overcited the three in the infobox are compared to the others. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016

They Formed There Band In 1998 not 99, you even have it in your own wiki 'Formation and Saturate (1998–2003)' and in Benjamin Burnley's Wiki "In 1998, Burnley and former lead guitarist Aaron Fincke, got together (along with Nick Hoover and Chris Lightcap) and started the band "Breaking Benjamin." Eventually, Ben wanted to try something different and went out to California to try some new material. The other three members went on to form the band "Strangers With Candy." They recruited old friend Mark Klepaski to play bass and he joined in, and shortly after, Nick Hoover was asked to leave the band." 71.53.2.69 (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

See #Formation, inclusion of Breaking Benjamin 1.0 members above. User:Jacedc (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Breaking Benjamin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140219175352/http://www.ign.com/articles/2006/09/11/breaking-benjamin-phobia to http://www.ign.com/articles/2006/09/11/breaking-benjamin-phobia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402095623/http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/benjamin-burnley-net-worth/ to http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celeb/benjamin-burnley-net-worth/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2017

I would like to reorder the genres that are attributed to Breaking Benjamin in order to more accurately describe their sound. MTJ2015 (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - You need to make a specific request as to what actual changes you want made. Sergecross73 msg me 00:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2017

Change genres (i.e., reorder them to more accurately describe the sound of the band). MTJ2015 (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

 Not done - See response to first request. Sergecross73 msg me 00:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

MTJ2015, a proper request would probably be denied anyway. You would need to present sources here to do that; the ones presented I believe are the ones that are in order of how many sources have been cited in the article. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is also probably true. All the genre are sourced, prominently used to describe the band by reliable sources, and the order they're presented in doesn't really matter, so I can't imagine a proposals that would warrant a change. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Breaking Benjamin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150517034545/http://www.kshe95.com/news/real-rock-news/new-breaking-benjamin-album-out-june-single-coming-next-week to http://www.kshe95.com/news/real-rock-news/new-breaking-benjamin-album-out-june-single-coming-next-week
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701184538/http://citizensvoice.com/news/from-breaking-to-broken-the-success-failure-of-breaking-benjamin-1.1183524 to http://citizensvoice.com/news/from-breaking-to-broken-the-success-failure-of-breaking-benjamin-1.1183524

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 Album

Strangely nothing at all about it on the page, but:

http://www.theprp.com/2017/08/30/news/breaking-benjamin-completed-new-album/

http://loudwire.com/breaking-benjamin-complete-sixth-album/

(both reference the same video interview)

Older source:

http://www.rockfeed.net/2016/12/05/getting-new-album-breaking-benjamin/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B115:CA52:9CB9:9D99:BC13:9BF8 (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done - I've added it now. I didn't hear about this until yesterday, and the main editor who wrote/maintained the article hasn't been around much lately, so that's probably why it wasn't on there yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that! I'll try to make some free time here soon to clean up some of the latter touring information in the 2014-2016 section and see if there's anything else to add to the 2017 section. User:Jacedc (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Single name revealed, questionable source?

I'm going to ping Serge, but the opinion of anyone else who happens to check here may be useful as well. Anyway, basically a while ago in a show in OKC, Benjamin revealed to the crowd that the next single is going to be named Red Cold River, also saying the music video for it was shot in a nearby park. No release date, no official announcement (as usual). We have a recording from the crowd for proof, but it seems clear to me that an amateur video self-published to YouTube would not be considered a suitable source, and also potentially constitute copyright violation. I emailed Loudwire to see if they wanted to report on it, but no answer. I think it's since been like three weeks.

However, a website called "Strife Magazine" reported on the video, but I'm just not convinced as to its reliability (as a suitable source, anyway). The professionalism of the website itself leaves much to be desired, but anyone can verify what the website is saying (they linked the video). Since context matters, I'm wondering if it should be used for this specific instance. Here's a discussion on reddit I've been having where I detail my concerns with the source. User:Jacedc (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Yes, I share your hesitations - the YouTube video itself would violate WP:USERG as is (its just a random account from a random person), and "Strife Magazine" doesn't look like it'd meet Wikipedia's reliable source standards - their About Us page shows that no one seems to have any actual credentials other than "liking rock music". Beyond sourcing:
2. BB is a huge band, so its rather concerning that this isn't all over the internet. I mean, the day "Run" by the Foo Fighters was announced - a similarly popular band - I had like 10 sources reporting on it within hours. If this was official, there really should be all sorts of reliable sources reporting on it.
3. Perhaps years in the future, people will see this post and laugh because my suspicion is wrong, but..."Red Cold River" is a weird name. Is there a chance that we're mis-hearing him, and he's saying something else? I'd hate to help popularize a false name. (Stuff like that happens when you go based off of what is spoken at a concert only - see You Know You're Right#Title.)

All in all, I'd say lets wait. When its official/confirmed, it'll be easy to tell. It's definitely good to have on our radar though. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I figured as much. Red Cold River is in fact the name though, a few people leaked the name online after getting exclusive "first listens" as part of a VIP package, which was well before Ben revealed it at the OKC show. There was also a casting call for it (looking at the details I assume the footage of the band performing the song and the footage of the video's theme was shot separately). I don't think BB is quite as popular as FF, but I agree we should just wait until there's an official announcement. It should be some time soon anyway (hopefully). Thanks for the input! User:Jacedc (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Breaking Benjamin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160107212649/http://www.rock-am-ring.com/bands/breaking-benjamin to http://www.rock-am-ring.com/bands/breaking-benjamin
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626152048/http://www.revolvermag.com/news/review-breaking-benjamin-dark-before-dawn.html to http://www.revolvermag.com/news/review-breaking-benjamin-dark-before-dawn.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2018

The last sentence under History is: "In December 2017 they returned with a heavier sound than previously and an album "Ember" and it's lead single "Red Cold River" were announced for release in spring and January 5, 2018, respectively." It should be "its lead single". Sentrion (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)