Jump to content

Talk:Minutes to Midnight (Linkin Park album)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Valentine's Day and The Little Things Give You Away

In these two songs, I can not hear any vinyl scratchings, they sound more like computer/soundboard generated sounds. Can anyone hear any scratching?

Bart-16 08:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Bart-16

Genre Dispute

Some IPs, mostly 75.152.196.153, are adding nu/alt metal and rapcore as genres. But only 3 songs on this album are even a little bit metal and only one is rapcore. Alternative rock definitely suits this album as many of the songs are softer songs. If this vandalism of the genres does not stop, this page should be semi-protected. Tim Y (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I personaly think alternative metal should be used as a second genre. Although this album is mainly based with alt rock and ballads, Linkin Park's heavier side is still present on a few songs and should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.252.174 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There are only 3 songs that can be classified as alt metal. This makes up only a small portion of the album. Also, the heavier songs seem to have more of a punk rock influence in them than metal. Alternative rock is the best way to describe the album as a whole and only the most general genres are supposed to be listed in the infobox. The subgenres and influences are already discussed in the article. Therefore, there is no need to list any more genres in the infobox. Timmehcontribs 02:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Come on, this whole album isn't just alternative rock! If I could list the genres they would be rap rock, alternative rock, and alternative metal atleast. They only have

two hip hop / rap rock influenced songs on Minutes to Midnight but still, Given Up and Bleed It Out clearly have metal influences. So somebody figure out the genre battle and see what we can agree on (genre wise). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.248.168 (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin Please Help

An ip, namely 87.167.221.5 (the first time) and 87.167.212.63 which are both the same person is changing the genres of this article and several other Linkin Park song and album articles. They keep separating the genres by line breaks and capitalizing the second words in genres. This needs to be stopped because it takes much time to revert these edits. Either the ip and any related ips need to be blocked or all these pages need to be semi-protected. Here are some examples of what this person has done --- Minutes to Midnight (album), Minutes to Midnight again, Given Up, Leave Out All the Rest, Bleed It Out, Shadow of the Day. This is the second time he has done this after I warned him and even gave him a link to the policy page. In one of his latest edit summaries on Minutes to Midnight he said "ähhh make it you angry when the r in rock is big?" He definitely knew it is against policy, but he continued changing them. This needs to be stopped immediately and i would really appreciate it if an admin responded and helped me out a little. Thanks. Tim Y (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible Plagarism?

I was listening to "Camisado" by Panic! at the Disco and when it got to around 1:11, I thought "This part sounds really familiar..." and after a bit of thinking I had realized that I had heard a "solo" almost exactly like it - in "In Pieces".

Hear for yourself:


Should there be a section on this? They sound almost exactly the same! --ToyoWolf 10:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

They do but lots of solos sound like that. Even dates back to Guns N Roses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil557 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Mistake is article

The first sentence itself is wrong. United World Chart does not issue certifications. It just says that the album has sold 4 million + albums. It says its 2 times Platinum, but it does not CERTIFY it, line RIAA does. Please make the changes. Indianescence 10:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In Between

I don't know if I'm seeing things, but has anyone read an error? First, under "sound", the article reads:

This is their first album where Mike Shinoda sings lead vocals for a full length track ("In Between"), rather than rapping.

Later:

In addition to his rapping on "Hands Held High", which features background vocals from the entire band (the "men's choir" singing "Amen" is actually each member of the band), he also sings the lead vocals for "In Between".

Anyone notice something familiar about Mike's lead vocals?Bentu (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean, fixed? It's still there! Bentu (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Um...no it isn't. At least its not repeating basically the exact same thing. If you don't like it, change it yourself. That's what you should've done in the first place instead of asking others to do it for you. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Why I didn't change it is because I didn't know which part to delete, or if there was a reason that it was repeated. Bentu (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there would be a reason to repeat it. You could try rewording the whole section if you have the time. I don't really feel like doing it right now. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright. Fixed. Bentu (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That album SUC....

this album can be labeled as EMO or worst INDIEot........... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.93.125.223 (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

EMO?!?! Are you kidding? Now everyone wants to label every single band out there emo. According to the general population, if they're rock, they're emo. This is ridiculous. I'm sick of it. The world is full of idiots. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Emo is like emotionally charged punk that teens relate to. People need to stop being ignorant and actually see what the lyrics are about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhil557 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

BURN!!! Bentu 02:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Source code error??

Under the track listing in one of the paragraphs there are 5 edit links in a row in the middle of a quotation. Can someone fix this because I can't find anything wrong in the code and I have no idea how this happened. I'm thinking maybe the audio samples caused it, but I have no idea how to fix it other than removing the audio samples altogether. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 21:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am an idiot who does not know proper formatting and isn't gonna look it up for one correction so deal with it. Someone clearly made a huge gaff under the section Leak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.191.22 (talk • contribs)
Don't tell me to "deal with it". I just said I didn't know how to fix it (though I eventually figured it out). If you don't have anything to contribute, please do not comment. But, thanks for the leak problem notice anyway. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(talk/contribs) 01:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reception

What happened to the reception part of the article? Titan50 (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternative & Punk

According to the CD itself the genre of this album is Alternative & Punk, so it should be changed in the genre section. Moersleuteltje (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Moersleuteltje

No, it should not be changed. I think it is already mentioned in the appropriate section of the article. However, it should not be in the infobox because Wikipedia relies on third party sources, and the official CD is a first party source. Please see WP:RS for more information. Timmeh! 00:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Given Up video

Hasn't this already been released? I've seen a live video on YouTube for a couple weeks now unless it's fake. Any info on this? The Given Up Video premiered on March 3,2008 and is on Linkin Park's Youtube go to the given up page for moreSteve2497 (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Timmeh! 15:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Reception

What happned to the reception part of the article? Titan50 (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The section has been restored. I tracked down the diff when the section was vandalized. In the subsequent edit, it was removed entirely by an unsuspecting IP. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In Pieces As A Single

Has In Pieces actually been confirmed a single? I've seen anywhere saying its a single and theres no reference. —Preceding I know Leave out all the rest is the next single. At first they said Little Things Give You Away then In Pieces But they only have 5 so I don't know Steve2497 (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC) unsigned comment added by 121.90.85.232 (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Iron Maiden reference

The font on the cover seems to be an Iron Maiden reference, particularly in light of the album title (similar to Two Minutes to Midnight) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.182.46 (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And don't forget the "What I've Done" video where they basically dress up as Judas Priest! I mean, they're obviously making some kind of connection or homage to these bands 24.22.176.75 (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Linkin Park

Have any of you heared about the Wikipedia:WikiProject Linkin Park --Freedom (song) (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC).

Discussion of alternative rock as a genre for Linkin Park

In the aim of establishing a Wiki-wide consensus as to whether or not Linkin Park is alternative rock, please visit and add to the discussion here. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bleed It Out - Linkin Park.ogg

The image Image:Bleed It Out - Linkin Park.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I proposed merging/redirecting No More Sorrow into this article, since it does not seem to present much substantial information. Albeit the GH3 and unsourced mention of the conception of the song, the article is bound to be deleted (likely redirected anyway). --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  02:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't agree with that. It is perfectly notable beyond merging or redirecting. Much work has been put into this article, and it would be a shame to see it go to waste when it doesn't need to.Tezkag72 (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Given the article does not meet any of the aforementioned articles, it really would be deleted in an AFD. Compare the article to to FA-status articles like Angel of Death and Eyes of the Insane. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  05:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is there no one else here?

Tezkag72 (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No More Sorrow has charted, so techincally its notable. Although In Pieces hasnt, and its not notable at all. Comments? Jakisbak (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It has charted. That means its notable, that means it should have its own article get it.--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Whether a song has charted or not does not assess notability - notability is not defined by popularity but rather specified guidelines. There are hundreds of songs that chart every year, even higher for that matter; what makes this song so special? Furthermore, there are several other songs that have not charted that have also met this encyclopedia's notability for various other reasons (critical reception, controversy, cultural impact). --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  18:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

According to wiki rule a song can have a page if it has charted.--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And that rule is....? --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  21:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Songs Familiarize yourself Jakisbak (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject for songs states, A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. The notability article does not specify the rank or reign (how long a song was charted) a song needs on a chart to specifically become notable. No More Sorrow has supposedly ranked 124 on the Billboard 100 for an unspecified amount of time. As I stated in the previous section and first post, there are hundreds of songs that make "charts" every month. With this acknowledged, articA separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.les are usually supposed to contain encyclopedic content and references to verify the content. (WP:SONG/WP:A) --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  23:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Generally, a song that has charted is a notable song, which means it merits it's own article. The one exception is if the song does not have enough verifiable information to merit it's own article, and is just generally there because it charted. My judgment in this case is that this song does not have enough verifiable information to merit it's own article, and should be merged. dude527 (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Nor No More Sorrow or In Pieces have enough information to get their own artcile, so i suggest a merge into Minutes to Midnight, somewhere should be put that No More Sorrow is a bonus track on GHIII and that it charted but i don't see why In Pieces has its own article as it hasnt even charted. Jakisbak (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like i didn't read the article thouroughly enough. Those two pages should be deleted as all the information on them is used in the article. It shows that No More Sorrow has charted and is on GHIII so there is no need for its own article, along with In Pieces. Jakisbak (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Then we have reached a consensus. Wikipedia policy shows we should delete the extra pages. Who wants to do the honors? dude527 (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
  • Hey, wait a minute. Keep No More Sorrow. No More Sorrow did chart, it did appear outside the realm of Linkin Park, USA Today did discuss it, Mike Shinoda did discuss it. I think the article should stay. In Pieces, however, doesn't really say anything. I am an Inclusionist, but I still think In Pieces is unworthy of an article.

Tezkag72 (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. No More Sorrow has no info that is not already in the album's article, therefore it should be deleted for not proposing it's relevance. It doesn't have any unique verifiable information. Change it up, or it goes. dude527 (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


I redirected both articles, In Pieces (Linkin Park song) and No More Sorrow to Minutes to Midnight (album) as per consensus. Jakisbak (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

NO MORE SORROW IS GOIN TO STAY. I'LL ADD SOURCES AND RELEVANT SOURCES TOMORROW OKAY. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

All I have to say, is that if the album's article still has the same information that the song's does, then the song's article is going. Simple as that, per Wikipedia's music policy. dude527 (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
As it stands, I merged No More Sorrow, and Minutes to Midnight. Reverting it is against policy. Policy clearly states, "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." The No More Sorrow article consisted of one sentence, and the chart position. Both of those are already contained in the album's article. Unless someone is going to dig deep and find a bunch of reliable sources that state many unique things about the song, that aren't already in this article, then No More Sorrow will be merged here. That's simple how it is. An article like that needs to be at least start-class to warrant an article of it's own, and that article was a stub. If it stays a stub, it stays merged. dude527 (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
To clear up a bit more, for people saying that "it's charted, it belongs in it's own article," well look at this. "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." It clearly says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts," so that means it warrants an article, right? Wrong. It goes on to say "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." That means, in other words, songs that have charted can have their own article, but only if there is enough information (verifiable information) to make a fairly detailed, and start-class article. If a song has charted, but it's still a stub article, it doesn't warrant it's own article. That's clearly said, too. dude527 (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Billboard albums" :
    • [http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003784993] Retrieved April 3 2008
    • [http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/albums_index.jsp Billboard Albums] Retrieved May 24 2007

DumZiBoT (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 13:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA nom

I've failed this good article nomination based on several observations:

  1. Though its a minor thing, the styling of the Professional reviews section of the infobox should resemble all of the album featured articles (see [1] for example)
  2. "Remarkably well" is too POV in the lead. Hybrid Theory sold 10 million copies in the US--2 million is only a fraction of that. Hardly remarkable.
  3. "It is also their first studio album with a parental advisory label, besides Collision Course." Collision Course was an EP, not a studio album.
  4. You probably don't need to mention Kanye and 50 Cent in the lead--that can be saved for the article.
  5. Allmusic only calls the album "alternative metal" along with rap-metal and post-grunge. "Alternative rock" would need a citation.
  6. Critical reception (aside from the RS ranking) should be mentioned in the lead.
  7. The last paragraph in the lead should probably be outright deleted, as the name of the album is only one small detail of it. If it needs to be mentioned, be less specific (i.e. "several names were considered...")
  8. The "Release" section is completely incohesive. Almost every paragraph is only one or two sentences and is filled with proseline. This section also starts with mention of its release, before anything has been mentioned about the recording sessions. This part is also missing citations.
  9. Completely delete the list of album peaks. Instead, turn it into prose in the reception section (only the countries where it hit #1 should be mentioned). Some of the less notable single charts should be deleted from the list.
  10. The ciations are poorly formatted. They should all include, at minimum, a publisher and an access date, and should also include the author's name if available.
  11. Don't cite a livejournal even if its just a scan of a magazine article. Just put the article date in the review box.

OK, that's enough to keep you busy for a while. It's still a long ways off from a good article. I recommend taking a look at the featured articles on albums to give you an idea of what album articles should look like. Obviously, they don't need to be at that quality to be a good article, but they need to be close. Good luck with the article. Teemu08 (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It also needs sources to verify everything. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad Review(s)

OK, first of all, I'm sorry if this is not the meaning that I'm posting this here.

But the NME-review, in the list on the right, is one childish review.
Actually, it's more of a comment by some guy that doesn't agree with the band, rather than a review.
It's not I'm against it because it's negative and I personally love this album.
Because if it's put there to show the mixed reviews, that's fine by me.
But the quality of that review is just abysmal and again, it must be said, extremely childish.
I just had to let anyone know, just have a look and you'll see it's just a short bashing-comment.
Ending with giving a 2 out of 10 because the guy is just an ******* by nature.

- MicHaeL H. DamageIncM (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Genre

With Given Up, Bleed It Out and No More Sorrow there are 3 alternative metal songs on this album! 3 of 12 this is 1/4 of the whole album, I think this is enough to be mentioned in the genre section. So I will add Alternative metal because I thing ALternative rock as primary genre and alternative metal as secondary genre are a perfect fit and would cover up everything perfectly! --95.112.209.220 (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources for its information. Timmeh 15:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This album is clearly alternative and metal http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:kxfuxzl5ldke with this as a sorce (and i agree with what the other guy said). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.248.168 (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox genre

Since this article says nothing about the album's genre or musical style(s), I think only the most general genre should be shown in the infobox. The current genre, alternative rock, which was restored twice without explanation after I changed it, is unsourced and debatable. I think just listing "rock" would be more sensible, especially as it covers the whole album, which no subgenre could do. Does anyone have any objections to my suggestion? Timmeh 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Heres what the reviews say:

allmusic - Alternative metal, Rap Metal, Post-Grunge

The Guardian - Pop-Metal, Rock

Hearld Sun - Rock

New York Tomes - Emo, Rock

Rolling Stone - Metallic Pop (Pop-Metal?), Hip-hop

Village Voice - Rock or("Rock, rock, scream, rock, rap, sermonize, rock.")

The rest are unclear as to what exact genre.

that gives Rock - 4, Pop-Metal - 2, Alt Metal;Rap-Metal;Emo;Post-Grunge;Hip Hop - 1 From that it looks like Rock should quite clearly be the main genre and *perhaps* Pop-Metal. I actually thought it was Alternative Rock but this is what the critics say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duck610 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for having the sense to look at sources for genre, way too few people do that. I think rock is fine. pop metal redirects to glam metal anyway, and it clearly isn't that. I think what those most likely mean is some of their old nu metal traits mixed with a pop rock approach. 86.148.213.161 (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop Adding Genres!

Ok, someone keeps adding Alt Metal, and more recently Nu Metal

A. There are 3-4 Alt Metal songs on the album out of 12

B. Its well known they avoided Nu Metal on this album

C. It doesnt matter! they are all covered by Rock which can also be sourced more than either of the above genres! so cut it out Ducky610 (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Minutes to Midnight (album)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Minutes to Midnight (album)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Tyskland":

  • From Linkin Park discography: "German Album Chart". Charts-Surfer. Retrieved 2008-06-24.
  • From In the End: "German Chart". Charts-Surfer. Retrieved 2008-06-24.

Reference named "UK":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Concept

I would definitely say that Minutes to Midnight is a concept album (as the songs mainly deal with the theme rebirth and redemption). Any thoughts?

Do you have any reliable sources to back up that assertion? Timmeh 18:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
None, which is why I'm wondering if it's correct. I remember some reviewers calling it a concept album when it first came out, but vague memories obviously don't count. I'll do some digging. Also, sorry about posting in the middle of the section. Friginator (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
If you find some sources saying it's a concept album, don't hesitate to incorporate it into the article. If it's true, I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet. Timmeh 22:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Art book

A CD/DVD Special Edition of Minutes to Midnight is available. It is designed to look like a book and contains a 24-page art book.... It's not CD/DVD it's CD/MVI And I think the number of the pages is wrong, I have Limited Special Edition and it's have 32-page

genre

Oh dear, this page seems to have fallen to genre trolling. Look, there's no way you can state that Linkin park are 'pure' rock. 'Rock' is an umbrella term. Yes, the album's subgenres are 'covered' by rock, but so are thousands of other albums (with completely different musical styles) dating back to the 60's! The idea of this website is you provide some detail as to the music's subgenre(s), not throw out some general term that provides no information whatsoever about the musical style. I'd call this album alternative rock, alternative metal and rap rock. Go online and you'll find plenty of valid sources that can be used to provide citations for those subgenres. Stop controlling this page like you own it - wikipedia is supposed to be an archive for accurate factual information, not a forum for your individual opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.30.97 (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad Redirect?

Why on earth does T and T redirect to this album? This has got to be some kind of error; how does one fix a faulty redirect link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.200.218 (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Critical reseption: POV

The section has given more wight to positive views. But the negative views on this album are as many as the positive ones (if not more).I tagged the section.94.182.106.231 (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Leak section

I seriously question the necessity of the leak section. It seems like fan cruft to me and does nothing to further the article outside of saying, 'Here's some information... oh, and the album leaked two weeks early like practically everything does. Well then. That happened. Moving on back to the article.' To pretty much be absolutely blunt about it, I dare say it's not even notable in the grand scheme of furthering the article along. The section itself is practically entirely made up of a quote as it is, further pushing the point of it being fan cruft. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Flatly removed per WP:LEAK. Although it was addressed by a member of the group, there was no major consequence of the leak (which happens to pretty much everything these days) and therefore, it was not notable enough to keep. Album sales were not affected, there was no major news coverage, etc. For an example, look to The Sims 3 which did get news play, and was addressed by the manufacturer, but there were no major consequences and sales were certainly not affected. Hence, the section was removed. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 12:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minutes_to_Midnight_(Linkin_Park_album)/Archive_2&oldid=1137014094"