Talk:Breaking Benjamin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Timeline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative rock and POV-oriented wording

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2016

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

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

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

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

Alt metal note

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2016

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2017

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2017

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

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

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

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

2017 Album

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

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

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

(both reference the same video interview)

Older source:

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

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

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

Single name revealed, questionable source?

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2018

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

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

To-do

It's been a while since I rewrote this article, and it seems it's time for an update on a few things. I'll leave a to-do list below and complete it as I organize sources:

• Update all single certifications (link), as well as chart placement data for DBD's singles. (Current section doesn't even mention the last three singles.)
  • Might also mention how DBD has the most singles of any past BB album?
  • Never Again their third no. 1 single for DBD and fourth overall (Mainstream Rock). Relevant source.
• Update the band's tour experience since release. I don't think we need to go into much detail since it's pretty much been non-stop touring, but they recently played at Reading, not to mention their co-headlining tours with Disturbed and Korn. Might as well also mention their Fall 2017 unplugged tour. (Update: also just announced a co-headlining tour with Avenged Sevenfold.)
• Fix some of the sources in the latter DBD section.
• Can probably expand on the sixth album section, with Derek Hough having a confirmed appearance on the album, also having covered "Ashes of Eden" in a choreographed music video.

User:Jacedc (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

For what its worth, I was the article creator/writer of Never Again (Breaking Benjamin song), which has a little more info than most of the rather crappy song articles for Breaking Benjamin. I don't know if it covers anything big-picture enough for the band article, but I thought I'd throw it out there and a content/source resource. I'm still around, maintaining this article, FYI. Lately I've been focusing a lot on creating song articles for modern rock/hard rock/alt metal bands, so I may be around to help with that too as singles start being released for Breaking Benjamin's new album too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Perfect! I'll take a look. Thanks for your work so far; indeed, most Breaking Benjamin song articles have been pretty crappy. User:Jacedc (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Jacedc - Looks like I ended up following through on what I said months ago - I was able to start up an article for "Red Cold River", FYI. Just letting you know since you like to look over everything BB. Sergecross73 msg me 18:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, good work! User:Jacedc (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Update

• Ben recently revealed the new album's name to be Ember.
• I recently found an interview in which Jasen describes the new album's sound as heavier and more complicated to play. This may be bordering on recentism though, so I'll ping @Sergecross73 to ask for your opinion?

That's all for now. Hopefully I can ride this hype train enough to find some motivation to update the rest of the article according to my earlier to-do list heh. User:Jacedc (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think as long as you've got sources, both of those bits would be really good additions actually. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Neat, I've added it then. Feel free to take a look. I'm currently preparing sources to cross off the other to-do list items as well. User:Jacedc (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. I tweaked the lead slightly, but otherwise I like it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2019

Change the word "founded" to "formed" in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the page, please. SlyJaknDaxter99 (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 22:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Back

Dunno if anyone's still here, just wanted to drop in and say I created a new account since I forgot the details to User:Jacedc (apparently I either didn't use an email or used one I have no access to anymore). Anyway, I'm back for a little while just to update the history section stuff, and I'm also thinking of maybe including details related to their philanthropy work and other bands they've influenced since there are a few sources for it now. Jacedc2 (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey there, I’m still around, watching over the article. Sorry to hear about your account. Those sound like good ideas. Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

2010 Hiatus Reason

In the lead in paragraph, it states that the hiatus in 2010 was due to Benjamin Burnley's "illnesses" but this is not referenced. Upon doing a little bit of research, this claim seems dubious as there is little evidence of this beyond vague discussions about his alcoholism problems. A lot more evidence suggests internal strife and disagreement within the band during this time period, than any "illness" that Burnley was going through at the time. This can be referenced easily. I'm adding a request for a reference for that section to allow an opportunity for discussion, if there is no citation/reference material that supports the "illness" claim for the hiatus, I'd like to provide the references for what was going on within the band at the time and provide that as the reason for the hiatus. As always, welcome discussion on the matter and appreciate input, thank you! RTShadow (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Five seconds into the most basic Google search “Breaking Benjamin 2010 hiatus” found me this source: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/breaking-benjamin-battle-mystery-illness-on-painful-road-to-number-one-40812/ so I’m a little concerned about your research methods over there... Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Aaron Fink

Can't Aaron Fink be counted as a backing vocalist. I've seen multiple live shows where he is doing so, if anyone wants to help me, let me know. Chimneyschangas2222 (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2020

change band's origin from Wilkes-Barre, PA to Selinsgrove, PA Bigfan24 (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done You need to present reliable sources to make changes. Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Jared Dines

@Mr. C.C.: insists on having Jared Dines be or their associated acts, just because he played live with them for one show for either one song or a couple of songs, the article does not clarify and I cannot find any article that does and even though none of the members of Breaking Benjamin have recorded with or played live with him outside of that concert. An associated act should have more than one band member having played in said act. Sure, we could add him to either the history or the touring members section, but where would that end? Gavin Rossdale played with Breaking Benjamin for one show for a cover of "Would?", should he be added too? I am sure there are more people who have played live with them as well. But if we add them, we would have to do it to the articles of all bands and all musicians . yawaraey (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

You are correct, that's not even close to enough to be considered an associated act. Sergecross73 msg me 00:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2022

Please add their 'Aurora' album (2020) to the list of albums - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(Breaking_Benjamin_album) 203.30.3.242 (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Guidelines say only main studio albums of new material go there when a band has its own discography article. Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Wrong info

Wrong town. They’re from Selinsgrove Pa 24.73.80.106 (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a source for this claim. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)