Talk:Breaking Benjamin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Origional Author

Mistakely I created this article while I was not signed in. I just want to identify myself as the original author. dance with the devil by breaking benjamin

Recommendations

I added a few details including the recommendations, and the the little paragraph starting with Ben. ;) adityam

Recommended songs sounds a little POV to me. This encyclopedia is supposed to be POV-free. Riffsyphon1024 18:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, for someone who wants to hear a few songs by them, should atleast be given a head start. the songs i've named have all been to the charts. just saves people time and clicks to going to the charts and checking them for themselves. --aditya mukherjee 15:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Riffsyphon1024. Recommendations do not belong in an encyclopedia. Charts are historical data, so they are appropriate for encyclopedic listing. However, recommendations aren't NPOV and therefore do not belong here. Cparker 18:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Breath #1 on pop 100??

Did Breath Actually Get #1 on the BillBoard pop 100? I didn't see any supporting data to this on the BillBoard, so I removed the info that said it was rank 1 for Pop 100. I did, however find the proof of it's ranking #1 on the mainstream rock chart. Cjgone2 04:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Screwed Up Page

Someone totally messed up this page. U can't even see the album art.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jordanfre (talk • contribs) 03:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I've been trying to clean it up and put it back to it's original form. additionally to everyone DON'T CHANGE THE WEEKS IT'S BEEN AT #1, it's been 11 weeks so far Imasleepviking 20:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

WHAT????

Ok, first why is the page locked? Second, Breath has only been #1 for 4 weeks, not 13. The actual vandalism here is putting incorrect information and then locking the page. Someone either unlock the page or fix the current information. Thanks.

Plan 9

Somebody told me they started off as Strawberry Jam, or at least some of the band members did. Can we get some verification on this?

Picture

To me, the picture looks like Jeremy, not Chad. Notice the hair line. Then look at these pictures which include Jeremy: [1], [2], [3]. Chad looks nothing like that. Can anyone show that it's Chad, not Jeremy? Enfestid 18:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's the picture on the front of their official homepage. Seeing as Jeremy Hummel has been out of the band for over a year, I doubt they'd keep him on the front page. Blackball135 01:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That's hardly reason enough to change the name. It obviously looks like Jeremy to me, not Chad. I see no proof otherwise... it's not unlikely to believe the picture is out of date. Why would they have a new publicity photo when no new material was being released? Enfestid 02:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at this picture (Hummel is in the far right): [4]. Looks like the exact same person to me.

Enfestid 02:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

All the photos mentioned in this talk post are of Jeremy Hummel. 72.47.12.7 09:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Cold417

you can't really trust a pic from breaking benjamin's website. i think they abandoned it for like a year. it's still promoting "we are not alone" instead of phobia. yeah, i compared jeremy's face, and i'm 95.352372% sure that's jeremy. 66.57.12.148 16:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Run Like Hell

Breaking Benjamin got their start (with me, anyway) from the Run Like Hell soundtrack. The game features two real-time action scenes (versus CGI) with the songs Polyamorous and Home playing in the background. Why isn't Run Like Hell mentioned anywhere on this page? Cparker 18:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Run Like Hell hardly did anything at all for their career. The music video was made before the game was released, then they changed the video to include scenes from the game in the video. The video game did absolutely nothing for their career, if you ask my opinion. The song was already popular before it, and the game didn't exactly sell all that well, so it's not like it had an impact on sales.

Enfestid 20:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a little POV the way you both state it but it remains notable that both songs were included in the game given that Breaking Benjamin would go on to release/contribute a track that was incorporated into the much more mainstream video game success Halo 2. Only fair to at least mention it somewhere even if it is a two line blurb. 63.233.15.205

BB became popular when DJs at 97.9 X started playing their stuff. Blow Me Away came after the popularity. 74.33.161.233 02:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Genre?

On this article, the band is referred to as a "modern rock/post-grunge" band, yet both of their albums say Alternative metal. Which is it? Cparker 14:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is Alternative Metal

Agreed. They are more Alternative Metal than modern rock. In Flames 20:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Emocore? What does that even mean?

they're alternative metal/post-grunge/hard rock. modern rock is a term used by radio stations usually referring to alternative rock. Itachi1452 19:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A bit nu-metal?

does anyone here think that some of their songs sound a little nu-metal? like in believe, burnley starts using his metal voice for a longer period of time than normal, and it starts to have a little bit of nu-metal sound. Itachi1452

ummmm....what do ya mean by nu-metal? sorry X] - inuxshinedown

I think they are a bit nu-metal as well. It's hard to define, but some of their songs give a nu-metal sound. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nu-metal 72.251.0.130 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

POV???

Does anyone else have a general issue with the overall tone of this article? I honestly don't feel that this is in keeping with the encyclopaedic nature of this site. The third paragraph in the "Band History" section are particularly fawning.Nnyheyd 03:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The third paragraph is very POV. Their music is not "over-whelmingly heavy." In Flames 21:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WTF OVERWHELMINGLY HEAVY? YOU'VE GOTTA BE KIDDING ME! they're awesome, and part of the beauty of the band is that it's metal but not metal ! yeah ben screams a bit....but it ROCKS!

NG

24.206.240.22 plugs links to the content-free "fansite" no-games.com, only for it to be removed. I see this as repeated minor vandalism. Shouldn't some action be taken against this?

It has content, and perhaps when researching the history of the band that you obviously care so much about...you shouldn't leave out a huge influence such as no-games.

Cold417 04:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Cold417

-It is obviously being promoted, for which Wikipedia should not be used for. Second- history? What history? The ONLY content on it is some MP3s. That hardly warrants its inclusion. 59.26.112.124 04:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's a reference to the band, and it's material. As of today, there isn't any in-depth content, but it's was all there once, and will continue to be there. This is not vandalism. This is not a plug. It's not breaking any rules or Wiki, nor is it unrelated. If you have reasons for exclusion from Wiki, please list them...but remember that Wikipedia is supposed to contain "un-biased" information. If you continue to push the subject then perhaps a detailed explanation is in order.

Cold417 04:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Key words: "was all there once". Now there is nothing. Not only does it have to be material, but it has to be NOTABLE. The best site ever can be linked to, but if that best site ever becomes a blank page, it will be removed. If good content becomes no content, that's the way it is.

Cold417: Please stop promoting your own site as it violates the Wikipedia guidelines. Please read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and the Wikipedia:External_links pages to understand Wikipedia guidelines. This isn't a fanlisting, and it's not meant to get your sites more hits, as you are clearly intending it to do. Excerpt from the latter:

* Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.) (In other words, fansites are occasionally linked to, but only if they have new information not found in other links.)

* Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article. (In other words, fan sites are normally not considered "neutral" sources of information, and thus should not be linked.)

* A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link. (In other words: DO NOT LINK YOUR OWN SITE.)

* External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and in particular Contributors' rights and obligations). (In other words, until you can cite and prove you have not violated copyrights, you should not link your page... which you shouldn't do to begin with.)

Again: Please stop linking your site. Wikipedia is not grounds for self-promotion. Your site also does not add any relevant information, which is what primarily warrants linking.

Thank you.

Enfestid 04:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who initially added the link, I'm only adding it because of it's false removal.

Read This: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such.

No-Games is the only BB fansite today..and as you can see it is appropriate.

If you would even bother to read my post and read the Wikipedia Manual of Style and other documents, you would understand you are in the wrong here. Please stop self-promoting your site. Your opinion on the matter doesn't change Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you.

Enfestid 04:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I read through the entire subject days ago. I'm not self-promoting. It was added by someone else, and was deleted for no reason. I have the right to add it back because it deserves to be listed. Either way, it won't matter because I'm sure you and the alike are against the site, for personal reasons.

Cold417 05:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to vent about personal issues and get on the proverbial soap box, if you didn't read that yet. Secondly, I have nothing at all against your site. I enjoy it and have followed it for a while as I've been registered on Shallow Bay for a while now. Is there some reason I should be biased against your site? Don't assume negatively. As I have already clearly outlined for you, your site does not need to be linked from the article. Can you give any reasons as to why it should be, other than self-promotion? Does it provide new information pertaining to the band other than that listed in the article? All I see is media at the present moment.

Enfestid

K, I found proof that NG is NOT the only BB fansite. Here's a Polish one:[5]. Even though it's not in English, it's a site. So NG is not the only Breaking Benjamin site and therefore that's one more presented reason that is wrong. QED.

SouthernBelle Sorry, I hate getting in the middle of things. But... I have a question. We all know NG isn't the only BB fansite. I know other's. But... I still don't get why you can't put it as a link. It's not hurting anything or making it look trashy. If you can clear that up, it'll be much help.

First of all, you are calling it "the number one fansite", which is a direct violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Second, there's pretty much nothing there. While you're at it, you might as well link to an otherwise blank page saying "BREAKING BENJAMIN ROX LOL!"59.26.112.124 08:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

SouthernBelle You're rather clever. Anyways, well, right now it's on the DL but it has media that most fans would enjoy. Like rare songs, clips, ect. If the way I word the site's name is not fine with you, we can easily negotiate a correct term and stop fighting like school childern, which we all are now. We're more mature and better than that, right?

Please read my first response to this. Until all those issues are addressed, it violates Wikipedia guidelines. First and foremost, how do we even know the media is official/cited/not a copyright violation?

Enfestid 17:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

SouthernBelle Personally, some of the "claims" are rather ridiculous, but I'm going to be the bigger person in the little skirmish we have going on. So, can you break it down (with out the "look at this from the Wikipedia guideline, blah blah blah") and just tell me, what do I have to do to put it as a site? This is just rather silly, personally, considering it's just a link.

If you people would even bother to read my responses here you would already know. And if you're not going to abide by Wikipedia guidelines and even educate yourself on what Wikipedia is, then why are you here? Answer: you're only here to promote No Games. If you were going to be the "bigger person" here you would have simply addressed the Wikipedia linking violations instead of continuing to add the link with no reasoning.

Enfestid 22:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

SouthernBelle So, are you only to promote Shallowbay? You're advertising as much as every other link on there. Why else would you put links on here? And I do know what Wikipedia is, and it's not some godly object, it's just a site. I hate getting in fights, especially when I know it's not worth it. There is a reasoning why you keep getting offended when putting the link on there. More than the Wikipedia guidlines.

The reason Shallow Bay is linked to is because it is the band's official site. Official links are to be included. And plus, this is Wikipedia. While on Wikipedia, Wikipedia's guidlines are your god. If you don't like it, don't edit. It's that simple. 59.26.112.124 01:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

SouthernBelle It's not that I don't like it, I'm going to keep editing because you keep making such a big deal out of it. I understand that Shallow Bay is the "offical site" now, and you know what, it deserves to be. I have nothing against Shallow Bay, I'm a member (I'm Beautiful Enemy if it makes you feel better). It's just the fact that you're going into such great lengths to keep No Games from being a link. NG is not self promoting, and I'm not vandilisng. If it makes you feel better, I'll ask for Wiki's permission. I'll ask questions on what requires it to be a link. I'll do whatever. This is just getting really immature. By the way, I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion

Mrsgibbs So does that mean if No Games gets more content, like news and a biography of the band or something, then it will be able to be listed as a link? If it has those, then there really isn't a reason for it to not be listed. I'm in no way affiliated with that site, and I have probably only been there 10 times total, but it was still a fan site, and it undeniably had good content that any BB fan would appreciate.

If the site has meaningful content that isn't available in the Wikipedia article or on the official website (which is now Shallow Bay, which I did not add, SouthernBelle, but I would have if it wasn't already there because it's considered the official site and because it has constant news updates coming from the band which would classify it as meaningful content not available in the Wikipedia article), then by all means it could be added. But, the issues regarding the content it hosts would also have to be cited to avoid copyright disputes. Wikipedia does not link to illegal materials on the internet, and while I like the No Games site, I have no clue if the material is copyright infringing.

SouthernBelle: there is no reason I keep getting "offended" when you post the site there. The reason I keep removing it, however, is the blatant disregard for Wikipedia guidelines and rules. Perhaps if you respected these rules I wouldn't mind at all. But you haven't. You and everyone else who keeps adding the website are blatantly ignoring Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe for you this isn't a big deal, but for Wikipedians like me, it is. I've already told you I like the website. That doesn't mean I'm going to link it if it violates guidelines, however.

By all means, however, go to a third-party resolution and get a moderator's stance on the issue. I want it resolved just as much as you do, but all I'm saying here is perhaps you should try to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines when you're linking to the site. As the person with the IP address 59.26.112.124 stated above: "While on Wikipedia, Wikipedia's guidlines are your god. If you don't like it, don't edit. It's that simple."

Enfestid 02:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If NG had enough content to even warrant it being called a fansite (as opposed to a media directory), along with proof that people still care about it (what it had once is irrelevent, links are about the site's present state), and if we knew if the content was legal, then that most likely would justify it as being linked to. As it stands now, however, there is simply "Next to Nothing" there.

User:59.26.112.124

SouthernBelle I cannot tell you if it is copyrighted or not. I didn't upload the material featured on the site. But from the last I heard (I cannot be a direct source.) that the owner of NG had special permission from the holder of the songs, clips, ect. So the material was in complete control of the owner. And if you haven't noticed I haven't edited that page since. I shall wait until it's resolved. And how do you know if it's not cared about still? I know it is. Everyone wants it back. It's still my homepage and I look everyday to see if it's back up. You can't tell me Shallow Bay took a wee "break"? Btw, good use for a song title, props.

Phobia leak

The line about the new album leaking continues to be removed as the band does not want that information in this article. Don't add it again. User:67.140.125.160

Last I checked this was an un-biased site offering information...and that statement seems pretty biased. Is this just another advertisement opportunity for the band? User:24.206.240.22

I added signature to the two above entries to avoid confusion. As the response by 24.206.420.22 said, however, Wikipedia is an unbiased site. Now, the entry says nothing of how to obtain the leaked album, other than it has leaked. It used to say where to obtain the leak, and I removed that and inserted a notice saying it's illegal to download the album. I understand the band may not want the information in the article, but it's hardly unworthy of being put in the article. The fact that the band doesn't want it to be here is irrelevant. That would be like having an article on O.J. Simpson without his trial simply because he doesn't want it in the article (to use a bad analogy).

It's fact, it happened, and it pertains to the band. There's no reason to remove it until the album is released, as it will be outdated information that's no longer relevant or informative.

Enfestid 19:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Does that warning really need to be there? I think that's sort of breaking the wikipedian fourth wall. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 07:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Name Irregularities

I know it's not much, but I figure Wikipedia ought to be as correct as possible. I noticed in the Miscellanea section, the comment on Aaron Fink's dad going on tour with them, his dad's last name has a "c" in the middle, and an "e" on the end, which Aaron's name does not have - "Aaron Fink" vs Gary Fincke". I second checked it on their personal Wikipedia entries, which show to be "Aaron Fink" vs "Gary Fincke". Is this a mistake made in creating one or the other's articles or is it correct?

It was in the bullet:

Aaron Fink pointed out that his father joined the band on tour, and that his father's music collection is what originally sparked his interest in music. Gary Fincke is a professor at Susquehanna University and wrote Amp'd: A Father's Backstage Pass about his travels with the band.

LoneKnight

Fink is Aaron's stage name, as he got tired of people mispronouncing his name when he spelled it Fincke. There is something about that mentioned in the book "Amp'd" that his father wrote. User:67.141.169.178

Band name

Why, for some reason, has Lycossucks decided that the information is important enough to be put in the main section of the article? It's funny, because it was never important enough when he kept editing it before.

Secondly, it is a trivial piece of information. How does it need to be in the main body of the article? If it should be, all of the trivia information should be. This is an encyclopedia, not your own little playground for editing. If you want to edit here, you should abide by the rules and standards. It's admirable that you like the band enough to work on their page here. But that doesn't mean you need to keep changing things. You can say it's so people don't ask on Shallowbay.com as much as you want -- but how is it being in the body of the article going to stop people asking any more than it being in the trivia section?

If you want to get in a pissing contest over who's a bigger fan: I have the original EP. I think I did know that there was one because of that issue. I've been a fan before they even released "Polyamorous." I too have been registered on Shallowbay.com pretty much since the inception of the site. Just because I don't post there doesn't mean I haven't been there since the beginning. Please don't question my intent as it represents bad faith on Wikipedia. I didn't just start liking the band overnight and deciding to be a jerk on their Wikipedia page. I'm editing it to fit Wikipedian standards and for it to be a good article. If you don't want the same, don't edit the page -- it's as simple as that. Thank you. Enfestid 14:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh fuck that dude. Good standards my ass. Go play your little game somewhere else. Your writing is poor at best *insert your comment on how you got a 94 on you 9th grade research paper here*.

Maybe if you allowed the edits, the article would be somewhat...oh i dont know... good. You think how the band got its name is trivial? HA! You my friend are dim. Look at any other article for a band. What do they include? THE BANDS INCEPTION! Maybe i wouldnt add it to the main paragraph,, if it were allowed in MISC the first thousand times i did such. But NO. you got on you high horse stating "See history" (when its not in there), and "Too lengthy"....TOO LENGTHY? Youve got to be fucking kidding me, its 5 sentences at most, it pales in comparison with other articles around. And you know what? PEOPLE COME HERE TO LEARN! IF IT TAKES 5 SENTENCES TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING...Guess what?...THEY'LL READ IT. Get off you fucking high horse. Any ways, the writing in this page is lackluster, too short, some of the information is wrong (The poly videos were'nt made for different countries, theyre both played around the world retard.), and inportant details are left out (You make it sound like the band changed their name and WHAM!,They were immediately signed, not the case, maybe you should include the line-up changes?, OH NO IT MIGHT GET TOO LENGHTY!). Whatever dude, you're fucking lame, you are not the god of Wikipedia standards. All my edits were within the same standards so fuck off, get a life.

Lycossucks 4:28, 3 September 2006

That which think they own the page

Alright you fucking retard, leave the page alone when people make edits! Your writing is terrible, the article is lackluster, its too short, and some of the information IS JUST WRONG! The Poly video was not realeased in 2 formats for different countries. Both formats were made and released to both countries. I have no clue how you got the idea that they were realeased in different countries, but I can assure you you're incredibly WRONG. Then you go on editing rampages, filtering out thing that are "too long", or "not important". I don't know about you fucktard but how the band got its name is important information. And about it being too long, well thats just stupid. Go look at other bands articles. Do you see, THEY'RE HUGE ENTRIES. Not some little brief faggy paragraph stints. Do you know why that is? BECAUSE PEOPLE COME HERE TO LEARN! Get off you high horse. Your writing sucks, the information is wrong, important facts are left out, and its too brief. You make it sound that after they changed their name they were immediately were signed. THAT IS NOT TRUE. There were many more incarnations of the band, line-up changes (You probably dont know who Bug is), other bands (You probably dont know Strangers With Candy [No not the TV show retard{You probably dont even know the TV show}]), THE EP. Its all left out because you're a fucking weirdo who has nothing better to do than think he owns wikipedia. So next time someone makes a change to your precious article, ask yourself: "Did the person add some important information that maybe some people wont know?" If the answer is "yes"...THEN FUCKING LEAVE IT. DONT REVERT BACK TO YOUR AWFUL WRITING JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BE KNOWN AS THE ALMIGHTY RULER OF THE BREAKING BENJAMIN WIKIPEDIA PAGE

Lycossucks

I am not even going to dignify your vulgarity-ridden message with a response. Please read Wikipedian policy guidelines (such as the Wikipedia Manual of Style) in reference to many of your complaints with the article. Most are addressed there.

If you're going to be a member of Wikipedia, at least try to abide by the guidelines and rules set forth here. It doesn't take long to read them all, and it would be greatly appreciated by the community. Wikipedia isn't a fan listing for people to modify the page as they see fit. There are guidelines, and they should be respected. Again: if you can't do this and treat the pages for what they are (online encyclopedia articles), why are you even editing them?

Furthermore, the part of the article under dispute was already in the main section until it was deemed unwarranted and moved to the Miscellanea section. The whole reason I didn't allow your edits in that section was because they were too lengthy. Trivia sections are supposed to be brief and to-the-point. Why create an entire paragraph regarding the issue? If you would read the Wikipedia Manual of Style and related sections you would know this. But you haven't even attempted to be a member of the community. Instead, you have insisted on resorting to making the page a fan-crufty listing. This is a NPOV site, if you didn't know.

And you're right. People come here to learn. They don't need to read redundant, fan-crufty statements. They don't need to wade through garbage to get to substance. And I wasn't the one who wrote a number of the statements in the article, so don't get on me for everything. Perhaps you should do as I suggested and actually read the history to know where the article once stood. If you have differing information, please cite your sources and change any incorrect statements.

And again: Please read the Manual of Style and Wikipedian Standards. It would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Enfestid 20:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

There you go getting on that high horse agian. Spare me next time.

1. I dont care how much youve read over the rules, I dont care how big of a part you are in the "community". You say you're not going to warrant a response then you do, nice that you follow through. I too have read the rules, and I too have practiced them while editing the page's entry.

2. I am treating the pages for what they are. Not once have I added anything vulgar, not of substance, or violated any other rules. Im simply adding useful information for would-be fans. Youre the one acting unjustly. Everytime I edit you take it upon yourself to restore the previous trash that was there, leaving out vital information, that people want to learn about. As I've stated, youre not the ruler of wikipedia, dont act as such, you come off as a fool.

3. Deemed unwarrented: By who? YOU? Oh of course its you, youre the ruler of all things Breaking Benjamin. As Ive stated, again, read any other article about a band. They include their inception, its not just "trivia", its vital information about the bands coming to be. Why create an entire paragraph? the answer could'nt be simpler, BECAUSE THATS WHAT NEED TO BE THERE. I cant explain it all in 2 sentences as you have, or else Im leaving out vital data. Which apparently you have no problem with?

4. Redundant? HA! You're laughable. The only thing I've changed are the bands name, which would only be listed ONCE, if you had let me edit the Misc section as I had originally intended. You're telling me that how the band got its name is "garbage". However, the sentence about the Poly videos (which is incorrect) is "of substance"? No, no, no, you've got them mixed up. Plus, I do believe the TRIVA about the Poly videos is already listed in the Misc section, great overlord of the Breaking Benjamin Wikipedia Page. And I do know the original state of the page, and it's much better than this piss poor excuse for an encyclopedia entry.

Next time spare me from your pseudo intellectual response.

Lycossucks

Again: please read the rules and guidelines. Judging from your responses, you have not.

And, if you KNEW the original slate of the page, you'd know that I created it. Thanks for the compliment. The majority of what the page currently looks like is not my doing. I've made minor changes, but not a lot. Thanks again for the compliment, though.

Enfestid 21:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont think you made a fool out of me, yes i knew you made the original, maybe it should go back to that, and maybe you should allow people to add important information this time around, instead of just stating "Triva". Whatever, you're just a lowly piece of trash. I understand that you need to think you're in charge of something so I'll just leave you be. Have a nice day refreshing every 5 seconds. lycossucks

Wasn't trying to make a fool out of you. Sorry if you got that impression.

I don't mind if people want to contribute to the article. I'm all for it. That's the whole point of Wikipedia and the beauty of it. But Wikipedia is also a NPOV (negative point-of-view) website. That means it's not a fanlisting. It's not a place for fan-crufty statements. No further information is needed other than basic information. And trivia information is intended to be brief and to-the-point, which is why it is listed as such. This is all information listed on the Wikipedia pages that you claim to have read.

I don't mind people editing pages. I mind a blatant disregard for rules and guidelines. Hence why my edits are taking place. I'm not trying to offend you, and I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I'm going to edit the page to be in compliance with guidelines. Your vulgarity and rudeness is not appreciated, however. Please assume good faith, as stated by the Wikipedia guidelines.

Enfestid 21:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Lycossucks, Ben wasn't a solo singer. The name came from them playing as Plan 9...not Ben being a solo singer. If you are going to attempt to get the inception of the name included in the article, at least get the information right. User:67.141.169.178

^No mr. 67.141.169.178 youre wrong. Take a look see. "I've been at this for a long time," says Burnley. "It wasn't all that long ago that I survived by playing cover songs in coffeehouses for scraps. I was like an acoustic jukebox, playing for people that ignored me while they ate and drank. It totally sucked. You eventually get to this point where you really want to be signed and make something happen, but you get so frustrated from all the bullshit, that you just don't give a fuck anymore. But of course, that's when you get signed." taken from this article: [link to copyvio website removed] He says I the whole time, never Plan 9. Hes also stated that on rockline that its from his experience as a solo singer, i have the mp3. If youre going to insult me, get your information right. Lycossucks

Lycossucks...you are correct. I checked my info and you are correct. The incident that inspired the name came way before Plan 9 began. Ben was doing an open-mic night at a club and covering Nirvana...I believe that should be added to the article as it is an interesting story. User:67.141.169.178

Thats exactly my point my man, but Enfestid says its "fan crufty" data that doesnt need to be there, when all that stuff about the video games and video versions is included in the main article. ive tried to edit it numerous times and he wont allow it. whatever, you can try to wage the war, im done except for fixing small pieces of info lycossucks

Please don't take what I say out of context. I never said that fact was "fan crufty" and I never changed the solo part of the page; someone else did. What I said is we don't need to give a paragraph just to explain that incident. If you want to make it a brief couple of sentences, be my guest. But, the edits given were excessive and came across not as a NPOV article but as a statement made by a fan.

Enfestid 03:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

No Games Part Two

Now that the site seems to be coming back, it can be added to the links (and fit Wikipedian guidelines) once there is content and information that is noteworthy.

Enfestid 17:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't believe that this page is noteworthy? You'll not be finding that direct information anywhere else on the web my friend.

None of that information was on the site when it was added back. And that "direct information" can be found in the Amp'd book, which is already listed on the article.

Enfestid 17:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that information has been there nearly a month now, so you are wrong about that. Also, not all of that information was found in Amp'd, and there is no online availability of that information except no-games.

"Follow" - A Single?

It's not in the table, but wouldn't "Follow" constitute as the final single off We Are Not Alone? Maybe my definition of a single is wrong, but I'm pretty sure that was the final one to be released for radio play. Is a single defined by the release of an individual CD of the song and not by its radio release? Cale 06:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Follow wasnt an official single. So Cold, Sooner or Later and the full band version of Rain were the only singles to be officially released. Follow was played only a couple isolated times across the country on satellite radio stations mostly, and was never formally released. --Lycossucks 01:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

A single is a song that's made into a music video, just to clear that up ;)Ruthless Xero 04:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Anxiety

On the radio, the drummer from Godsmack said BB is out of the tour because the lead singer kept getting anxiety attacks and even had to call an ambulance at one show. I think they got replaced by a band called Soil but I wasn't really paying attention. 72.45.1.19 14:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

SOiL is their replacement on the tour. The "anxiety attack" report has not be confirmed by the band's website, the only official explination is illness in the band, possibly an inner ear infection for lead singer Ben Burnley.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was true. Ben does have phobias and stuff. either way, SOiL's also a good band.Itachi1452 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

wow..panic attacks? i know he's scared of planes anyway. it kinda makes them more beleivable though =] not that im happy he gets scared or anything

Alternative metal

It was redirecting to metal not Alternative metal, changed on Jan 02, 2006. Josewiki 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Josewiki

Protection

I've decided that there should be a stop to the changing of the amount of time that Breathe has spent on the US Mainstream Rock charts. I've changed it three times today and a number of times in the past months. I threw up the protection tag so that the random IP address from changing this. Post the discussion here instead of just removing it please. Imasleepviking 02:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The protection tags don't actually confer any protection by themselves; you need an admin to actually set the protection level. Speaking as one, I personally don't think that the vandalism is frequent enough, relatively speaking, to warrant protection yet (compare to the page histories of other pages that have been recently semi-protected), but you could always try at WP:RFPP if the situation worsens. I'll also keep this page on my watchlist. — TKD::Talk 03:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that the steady stream is still continuing, I've decided to semi-protect the article temporarily. — TKD::Talk 01:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fix "Breath." Its only been #1 for 4 weeks. Also, check your sources before you post info. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.230.247 (talk • contribs)

I think I now see the problem. I did my own research just now, and the number currently there, taken from the billboard.com website, actually represents the number of weeks on the chart (see here), not the number of weeks at the current position (otherwise, the chart would be inconsistent with itself). So, this is actually a question of which number is more appropriate, or whether it belongs at all. I have no strong opinion here, except that it does seem a bit on the overly detailed side to me, and that, if it does stay, it does indeed need clarification and a citation. My apologies to all for not recognizing the actual nature of the situation earlier; I've had to deal with far too many cases of "sneaky" numbers-changing without explanation in the past. — TKD::Talk 22:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok thats fine dude, i was just kinda wondering... :)

WHAT????

Ok, first why is the page locked? Second, Breath has only been #1 for 4 weeks, not 13. The actual vandalism here is putting incorrect information and then locking the page. Someone either unlock the page or fix the current information. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.230.247 (talk • contribs)

Responding above to keep discussion centralized. — TKD::Talk 22:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Breaking Benjamin's logo

i noticed there was no mention of there logo (as far as i could see anyway) iv made an image of it but i wasn't sure were the best place to put would be or how to do it so i thought id link it from my photobucket here [6] (1000x1000 in .png format) its shown on all the album covers, it appers to be 4 interlocking B's

CAN Top 33?

Should this "chart" even be listed? It's just some random guy's countdown of his favorite music. Also, Phase and Home were never singles.

Filmography

The more I look at the filmography section, the more it's getting out of hand. It's really unencyclopedic in style and adds nothing to the article at all. I'll allow an exception in prominant cases such as in a couple of movies, but outside of that it really needs to go. Imasleepviking ( talk ) 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How exactly can you have post-grunge and not alternative rock?

Alternative metal is too heavy to be post-grunge and in order to be post-grunge you actually have to be an alternative rock band. You can't have it on its own. Either alternative rock needs to be added, or post-grunge should be deleted. James25402 18:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry, but i disagree. post-grunge derives from alternative rock, yes. but alternative rock isn't necessary. for example, it's like instead of putting in "alternative metal", you instead put alternative rock, then heavy metal. waste of time. Itachi1452 00:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

POV line fixed

"Opposed to returning to the towns where he "postponed" shows, no dates in any of the states of canceled shows have been posted. They love their fans enough to avoid the ones they let down."

I fixed that line to make it more NPOV Bliks 23:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

changes

I added a link to a picture of Breaking Benjamin's logo that someone else posted below. Someone should really fix the trivia section it's gotten bigger each time I look at this article. It wouldn't be too hard to incorporate it into the band's history. devin75.40.234.151 03:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

As of now, the link to the Untitled album redirects to the main page for the word untitled. While this page does also serve as a redirect, no mention of Breaking Benjamin's Untitled album is listed, so I think it should be changed to just plain text, until such time that there is something for it to redirect to. Of course, I'm just suggesting, and not even a user, so feel free to do what's right with it. 64.53.249.171 (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Phobia album

There's info about the tour, but none about the creative process, release dates nor album charts. HitokiriGaijin (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2008(UTC)

Medicate Source

We need a source telling that Medicate charted at #28 on the BB Mainstream Rock Chart and at #40 on the Modern Rock Chart. I can clearly find that it was a single, but I can't find anywhere that says it ever charted on either chart. This article has the song peaking at the slots mentioned above, but I can't find that info anywhere else. Even the Saturate page has it listed that Medicate didn't chart. We need to fix this on one of these pages. Billboard has no record of Medicate charting but it has the records of all 8 of Breaking Benjamin's other singles.

I NEED HELP!!!

I need to get some pictures and at least one music sample up! This article seems boring! Any help would be appreciated. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaikiriChidori (talk • contribs) 18:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed for Atlanta Riot

I can't find any citations for the riot at the Tabernacle in Atlanta. If you could help by finding a citation and report it to me, that would be great. Does anyone even go to the discussion pages anymore?RaikiriChidori (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Refreshed

This page a little bit. I'm still working on references and citations for all this information though. What do you think? RaikiriChidori 23:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Update

First off, I archived all previous discussions as an attempt to clean up the talk page. Secondly, this page is in need of a serious rewrite. There are no cohesive paragraphs after the history; everything is in jumbled sentences. I'll try to fix some up but I don't have a lot of time to do such things. Imasleepviking ( talk ) 17:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I'll go ahead and work on some biographical info to put in. If you need further assistance, let me know ;)RaikiriChidori (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sillies, Breaking Benjamin didn't tour with Puddle of Mudd. It was Seether. (I was there.) >_> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.228.28 (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah they did, but the tour was cut short. Also, Three Days Grace and Red were on the bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.159.15 (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The red was added half into the tour, first half was Skillet, Seether, Three Days grace, if I remember right, skillet dropped off for Red to join. 141.216.1.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC).

GA

Sorry, but i do not believe this article currently satisfies the Good Article criteria.

• First of the lead is way too small and should contain at least two paragraphs, it should either mention the line-up, any number 1's, check other music GA's for further clarification.
• .'[2]In 1999 - You need a space after the reference, and the single quote should be inside the full-stop
• after various line-up changes, why not tell the reader these changes
• "Phobia." - the album should be in italics, songs go in quotes
• The layout is confusing - you first have the "history" of the band, then style, then members then back to history. WHy not put style and members after the history so it's in order
• The image in the infobox fails the fair use criteria because the band is alive and a freely licensed picture can be taken at a concert and can be uploaded.
• hey achieved their first number 1 single in 2007 - number 1 where? what chart?
• Breaking Benjamin fits perfectly into the post-grunge scene with thick metal guitar riffs and mixes of clean, melodic vocals and screams, growls & shrills accompanied by dark lyrics. - fits perfectly? whose opinion is this? "&" should be changed to "and"
• Benjamin Burnley - Vocals, Rhythm Guitar, String Arrangements - instruments should be lowercase
• number 2 on the Billboard Top Heatseekers Chart and at 136 on the Billboard Top 200. - reference all chart positions and sales figures
• Saturate has gone on to sell over 300,000 copies making it a moderate success - please define "moderate success" some bands would kill for those sales figures
• The album featured the lead off single "So Cold" - writing error
• Also released as singles from the album were - don't start a sentence with also
• In addition The song was played during an episode of the TV show "8 Simple Rules." error with italics here, TV show shouldn't be in quotes (goes for all TV shows) and whenever you use quotes they need to go before the full-stop
• We Are Not Alone - don't know why this is bolded
• September 1, 2007, full dates should be linked like this September 1, 2007

These are just a few things. The article contains too many trivial items like "song" was featured on X, too many one sentence paragraphs making bad writing, not enough references for things like chart positions and sales figures etc. Don't feel bad about it being failed, when i nominated my first Good Article it was in really bad condition, once you learn how things should be organized/formatted it gets a lot easier. M3tal H3ad (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Breaking Benjamin Shadows.jpg

Image:Breaking Benjamin Shadows.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Breaking Benjamin Tour.jpg

Image:Breaking Benjamin Tour.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BreakingBenjamin-TheDiaryOfJane.ogg

Image:BreakingBenjamin-TheDiaryOfJane.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Logo

IllaZilla removed the logo, alleging that WP:N applies. WP:N says explicitly:

Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people

Also cited was WP:NONFREE. I challenge IllaZila (and now Rehevkor who has vouched for IllaZilla's edit) to justify, with explicit and clear references to policy, what the problem is, and explain precisely and explicity why those same policies do not apply to the vast majority of other logos. Removal without clear justification may be considered disruption, a blockable offense. Gimmetrow 00:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The logo was legitimately removed by User:IllaZilla, and not every edit needs to be discussed in the talk page, the policy he cited in the edit summary is clear enough.

There is no discussion of the logo's significance or references as to its notability. it adds no meaningful content to the article and therefore fails WP:N and WP:NONFREE

Basically he's saying there's no critical commentary (or why it's notable) on the logo itself so it's not covered under the fair use policy. Rehevkor (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

But as I state above, WP:N doesn't apply, and there is even commentary, so yes this does need specific and clear discussion to justify removal. Gimmetrow 00:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to wait for User:IllaZilla to have his say eah? Although, I find accusations of disruption and threats of blocking incredibly offensive for good faith edits. Please try and be a little more civil? Rehevkor (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been having it out with Gimmetrow over logo use in band articles for a while now. My same rationales still apply in this case. WP:LOGOS states: "Avoid using a logo in any way that creates an impression that the purpose of its inclusion is to promote something. Generally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons)." If the Breaking Benjamin logo is of interest for design or artistic reasons, then those reasons should be discussed in the article using referenced commentary, ie. in a section about the band's visual or artistic style. If no such commentary is present (as was the case in this article), it creates the impression that the logo's use is promotional (or decorative, which is essentially the same thing). Note that it is at best unclear to what degree the provisions of WP:LOGOS applies to the logos of musical acts, as WP:NONFREE (a policy of which WP:LOGOS is a subset of guidelines) only specifies that "Team and corporate (emphasis added) logos [may be used] for identification." Meaning, team and corporate logos can be used simply for identification; no supporting text is necessary. Band logos, on the other hand, require more substantial referenced commentary in order for their notability to be established. In my honest opinion, the way that the Breaking Benjamin logo was being used in this article gave the impression that it was only there to promote the band, or to serve as decoration. My basis for this impression was that there is no commentary anywhere else in the article discussing the band's visual or artistic style. The Breaking Benjamin logo, therefore, does not appear to be be notable or iconic in any way. And even if it were iconic, WP:NONFREE only allows "Images with iconic status or historical importance [to be used] as subjects of commentary." The image's caption only read: "The Breaking Benjamin logo, which is a variation of the Celtic knot." This unreferenced statement didn't constitute critical commentary and didn't establish the notability or historical importance of the image. Much more meaningful, referenced commentary would be necessary. And in the absence of such commentary, we must err on the side of exclusion per WP:FAIR and WP:NONFREE. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with the basics then. WP:N doesn't apply, so that part is done. WP:LOGOS and WP:NONFREE are guidelines, not policy; the policy is WP:FUC. There is nothing obviously in WP:FUC which says one type of organisation logo needs "more substantial referenced commentary" than another, and surely you are aware of the disputes over exactly what "critical commentary" even means in the guidelines. Gimmetrow 11:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree with you that WP:N doesn't apply. WP:FUC, if you want to quote policy, says: "Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic." WP:N is one of Wikipedia's basic content requirements and establishes whether or not the thing in question is encyclopedic. How can you claim that a band logo is encyclopedic if you make no attempt to establish its notability? Show, don't tell, remember. It also says: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I fail to see how having the Breaking Benjamin logo in the article, in the manner it was included before, would significantly increase a reader's understanding of what/who Breaking Benjamin is. Its omission certainly isn't detrimental to that understanding. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the other talk page. You're wrong about WP:N, which applies to topics, not content. But if this is your argument, then kindly explain how having the British Airways logo in the infobox without commentary "significantly increase[s] a reader's understanding of what" British Airways is, and why "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Gimmetrow 21:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The BA logo is a representation of the company. It's impossible to have a free image as representation when the only image available is a logo. In the case of Breaking Benjamin you can quite easily take a free photo of them at a gig or some such. You have to remember that non free images have to be kept to a minimum, only used when absolutely necessary, or is needed to illustrate the subject when there's no free alternative etc, not put in there for the sake of it, as was the case with this logo. I know this probably won't address your concerns, just adding my 2p, but I'm sure IllaZilla will give you a full response. Rehevkor (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but it doesn't answer the question: How exactly does merely showing the BA logo increase my understanding of British Airways? The basic answer is: it tells me about the logo in a way mere text would not, and the logo is one aspect of the organisation that should be present in a complete article on British Airways. The same applies to bands. We wouldn't omit mentioning alternate names for a band simply because one of the names is sufficient for representation. Likewise, we shouldn't omit presenting a logo, simply because the band can be represented some other way. If Breaking Benjamin represents itself though a logo, that is a significant aspect of the band. In many instances the logo is a more essential means of representation than a picture of a gig. Gimmetrow 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

IMO the comparison isn't really valid. We clearly disagree on whether or to what degree band logos are covered by policies/guidelines like WP:FUC, WP:NONFREE, and WP:LOGOS. However, corporate logos seem to be unquestionably covered. WP:NONFREE explicitly states that team and corporate logos may be used for identification (ie. no critical commentary necessary, similar to album covers), because logos are the primary means by which companies identify themselves and companies, as noncorporeal entities, are impossible to photograph. Therefore the necessity of displaying a logo in an article about a company is self-explanatory, as there is no other reasonable way to identify the company. I'm not saying that there is no way that the Breaking Benjamin logo can be included in the article. If it is indeed an "essential means of representation" that they use, then that merits some kind of commentary. But it can't just be stuck in the article without any referenced commentary, because unlike a company a logo is not the primary means of identification for a band, therefore its use is not self-explanatory. A band is corporeal; it's a group of people. And those people can be photographed and, together with the name of the group, this provides identification (and in the best possible way for WP: free). There may well be a place to use the logo, in a section discussing the band's artistic or visual style or something like that. I would have no objection to the logo being used as such, because it would clearly be importan to to such a discussion. But there's nothing in this article that discusses the band's artwork, visual style, or anything of the sort. As I've said before, in the absence of any supporting commentary we must err on the side of exclusion per Wikipedia's fair use and non-free content criteria. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Quoting you: "Therefore the necessity of displaying a logo in an article about a company is self-explanatory, as there is no other reasonable way to identify the company." You are arguing that bands do not need to be "identified" by a logo. That begs the question: why do we "need" to identify a company by a logo, when the name of the company is more than sufficient. Likewise, a sports team "is corporeal; it's a group of people. And those people can be photographed and, together with the name of the group, this provides identification.... In the absence of any supporting commentary we must err on the side of exclusion per Wikipedia's fair use and non-free content criteria." Gimmetrow 23:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe worth mentioning WP:NFCC if it's not come up already. It's a policy rather than a guide line and the BB logo fails a significant chunk of it. Anyhoo, BA is a corporate entity (something BB isn't) which can only be identified by their logo. The public associates the company by their logo, usually by default. This this the case for BB? Can you find any reliable 3rd party sources for the significance of the logo? If you can, please do so. It's a higher priority to remove "illegal" material than to make it legal. Rehevkor (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If the NFCC *guideline* is interpreted such that the BB logo fails a significant chunk of it, then so does the BA logo. Can you find reliable 3rd party sources for the significance of the BA logo? (That should be easy, right, it's a big company...) And the "corporate entity" argument doesn't seem work for sports teams. Gimmetrow 23:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

NFCC is "an official policy" according to that box at the top of the page. Ironically, the "corporate entity" argument doesn't work for bands either, a lot less than it does to sports teams, which are, ironically, essentially "corporate entities". Rehevkor (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh bloody confusing acronyms. WP:FUC is the policy and its the same as WP:NFCC. But there's also the WP:NFC guideline, same as WP:NONFREE. Illa routinely refers to things from Wikipedia:NFC#Images, which is only in the guideline. In any event, there is nothing in WP:FUC about corporate entities. Gimmetrow 00:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not meant to. You have to judge each image individually. For example; to quote the BA logo rational (even though it's pretty clear to me comparisons of a company and band logo in this respect it totally irrelevant) "This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone." The BA logo clearly shows it represents BA, anyone reading the article will instantly know the relevance to the company and the article, it increases the quality of the article. It's clear this is not the case in the BB logo. Unless you want to want to dispute Wikipedia's content policy or guidelines or whatever (which here, I might add, is not the place to do it), arguing semantics and making irrelevant comparisons is not going to get anywhere. I invite you put your efforts into improving the article (or indeed the BA article) instead. Rehevkor (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to Illa - Illa's the content destroyer here. "anyone reading the article will instantly know the relevance to the company and the article, it increases the quality of the article." That applies to band logos too. Gimmetrow 01:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it apply to people unfamiliar with the band? It's just a symbol. Rehevkor (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it apply to people unfamiliar with BA? or British Midland or XL Airways or OpenSkies? It's just a symbol. (And I see that someone tagged a problem image on BA.) Gimmetrow 02:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ba logo has "British Airways" written on it. So clear to anyone that can read. Rehevkor (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So the left half of Image:Breaking Benjamin Banner.png would be fine? Gimmetrow 02:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My concern with the banner image is: the description page states that User:RaikiriChidori created it and is the copyright holder, and is releasing it for use on WP. But one look at it tells you it's pretty clearly a composite image made of several possibly copyrighted originals: the celtic knot logo, the text of the band's name (from an album cover maybe?), and a promotional photo of the band. I notice that Rehevkor has left a message on RaikiriChidori's talk page to try to find out where he/she obtained the images used to create the banner, and whether he/she actually has the rights to declare it under the GNU license. A glance at RaikiriChidori's talk page shows that he or she has a lot of problems with copyright status of uploaded images, including the BB banner. Anyway, my take on it is that unless the words "Breaking Benjamin" are part of the logo, then no it's not the same thing as the BA logo. Splicing 2 copyrighted images together to make your own logo image is really just fancruft, in my opinion. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. That appears to be some kind of mock up (with a very dubious license), the text is not part of the logo (and it's unlikely to make a difference if it was, see above). You really are going the wrong direction for this. We have invited you to prove why the logo is wroth of inclusion but so far all you have done is claimed some irrelevant comparisons and disputed the policies themselves. It doesn't matter what other pages have done, if you don't like that they have done you are free to dispute them, the fact of the matter is that the logo on this article fails countless guidelines and policies and all you have done is argued as to why rather than putting your efforts into addressing the issues, I implore you to do so because at the moment we're just going in circles. Good night! Rehevkor (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the banner has other problems not relevant to my question. Hypothetically, if the BB symbol were identified with the words "Breaking Benjamin logo", would "anyone reading the article will instantly know the relevance to the company and the article, it increases the quality of the article"? Hypothetically, would this be true of the BA logo if the company did not combine its name and symbol in that formation? Does the location of the logo in the infobox convey any information? Gimmetrow 03:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sick of repeating myself here so I'm going to make one last point: WP:LOGO states that "In the case of any dispute, the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to include the logo.", so far all you have done is dispute the policies themselves rather than address them, if you can't do that your arguments are fundamentally flawed. Rehevkor (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sick of repeating myself here that Illa has not demonstrated any policy requiring the removal of the logo from this article. All alleged policy-based arguments that Illa has made would result in the removal of essentially every logo from wikipedia. I am NOT disputing the policies, but Illa's absurd application of them. Gimmetrow 04:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It has now been 10 days since you have abandoned discussion and failed to make your case. I will be restoring the image now. Gimmetrow 21:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)