# Talk:The Hunting Party (album)

What I know, there is not any official confirmation about the name of the album. Therefore I would suggest to rename it to "Sixth studio album (Linkin Park)" or just make a redirect until the name is confirmed. --Stryn (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

They haven't officially announced it? It's been mentioned in so many sources (here, here, or here, for example) that I assume that it was official. We'll want to make sure - if its renamed something like "Sixth Studio Album", it will almost certainly be deleted/redirected per WP:HAMMER. (Honestly, it probably could be now even, but I personally don't like to waste time and push for deletion for things that will almost certainly be notable relatively soon.) Sergecross73 msg me  15:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I know, there is some sources which are sure that it will be name of the album, but I'm sure they thinks so just because of the one YouTube video. Btw [1]: "It’s easy to speculate that “The Hunting Party” could be the name of the album. However June 14th is a hard sell on a release date as that falls on a Saturday and albums almost always are released on Tuesdays." --Stryn (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Re this. We're still looking for a reliable source for the album name. However I've moved up the relevant ref from Boston Music, with full sentence to preempt linkrot. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
There are no reliable sources because the name hasn't been revealed. It's that easy.--Gbuvn (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
So in other words: this article should not exist yet with that name because the name hasn't been even revealed. --Stryn (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It could be renamed into Linkin Park's sixth studio album. --Gbuvn (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
You may as well just redirect it right now if you re-name it that. Articles with that sort of title are never kept. Sergecross73 msg me  21:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I see no one has restored the deletion of The Hunting Party album which actually exists from the dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This source claims to have listened to much of the album, and calls the album as "The Hunting Party". They know many track names, so it makes sense that they'd know the album name too. Sergecross73 msg me  12:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The titles could be made up. I don't really think you can take that as a reliable source. --Gbuvn (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
What's the practical scenario you see from that source then? That they mentioned specific song titles, and listened to actual tracks, and yet didn't actually talk about the album title? They went out of their way to say the release date isn't confirmed yet, so they would have said the same about title if that was really the case. Sergecross73 msg me  15:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
A new interview just came out and that should finally be a reliable source: http://www.complex.com/tv/shows/complex-news/interview-linkin-parks-mike-shinoda-on-working-with-rakim-and-not-making-music-for-radio But still, I'd remove the track names from the article since those are partly from your source and partly from an LPTV episode (working titles most likely). --Gbuvn (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with removing that. I didn't think we used partial song lists like that, but wasn't sure because honestly almost all of the album articles I create or maintain already have complete track lists. Sergecross73 msg me  17:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So, I didn't want to edit war, and I figure this will keep coming up, so looking for consensus on this. The tracklist, as portrayed here, should be removed, because its unsourced, and its numbering seems to suggest an order that hasn't been revealed yet. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me  17:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, definitely should be removed immediately, which I have already done. If there are any official song names confirmed, then a "confirmed tracks" section presented in a bulleted list is appropriate. STATic message me! 17:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Please change the image for the album to this picture (https://s3.amazonaws.com/vice_asset_uploader/files/1397053470LP_Cover.jpg). This has been confirmed as the cover for the album.
XxEvilFacex (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: Files that aren't uploaded here can't be used on articles here. See WP:FFU to get it uploaded here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The tracklist for the album is included by me. The reference is from this site http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/upcoming_releases/linkin_park_announce_new_album_the_hunting_party_unveil_cover_and_release_date.html 
The album list was also uploaded in a facebook page for the album. Chopra.nitin96 (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and it was removed because it's not a track list, its just a list of confirmed songs. There's a difference. Its original research to take a list of songs, and assume its a track list, so I support the user who removed it. Sergecross73 msg me  15:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
We can make a list of confirmed songs if there really are some, however it would not be in a Template: Track listing, and we would not a site that is considered a reliable source to report them as confirmed. STATic message me! 17:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

In the second paragraph, where it says: "the band's first featured musicians on a studio album." It's been bugging me for a long, long time. The proper grammar would be: "it's the band's first studio album featuring musicians from other bands."
2600:1007:B12E:1D62:DD83:7A31:AA1D:2F0B (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done @2600:1007:B12E:1D62:DD83:7A31:AA1D:2F0B: I have made the edit; I feel as though your suggested phrasing is more complete and informative. --JustBerry (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The new song Wastelands is a promotional single and not a single! It is streamed via radio! It has a lyric video doesn't mean it is a single! Lies Greed Misery also had a lyric video but it is a promotional single! Please someone edit it!!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.134.29 (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC) 
Yes I agree with you! This is wrong! And the same goes with Rebellion. The theory which these people follow is the song which has a lyric video is a single! Please edit this! Naam toh suna hi hoga (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is a single! It was released as a digital single in Australia! Chopra.nitin96 (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

How about Rebellion and Final Masquerade? Are they promotional singles or "real" singles? --Stryn (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Rebellion and Final Masquerade are real singles, not promotional singles. User:Skylar3214 5:53, 9 June 2014

I think there should be a separate page for the DVD Video Album just like Living Things + and A Thousand Suns+. Please give a suggestions. Chopra.nitin96 (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel like your examples don't even deserve an article. They're little beyond a track list, and mostly sourced by retail listings. They should probably be redirects themselves at this point... Sergecross73 msg me  16:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I feel there should be a separate page! Because they are not only beyond a track list but also a video album! Just think of it! I shall create a page as soon as there would be a proper name and cover available for the VIDEO ALBUM.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.203.222.255 (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I got the cover for DVD and the Name is The Hunting Party (DVD), like Breaking the Habit (DVD). So I would make the page for it. Mike:Golu · [ ChitChat ] 06:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
You guys need to be able to prove it meets the WP:GNG or it will just be redirected or deleted. So far, all of the "similar examples" given are on terrible shape and in danger of deletion/redirect themselves. Sergecross73 msg me 10:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is proof that "Final Masquerade" is actually the real single from this album. Fifth New Linkin Park Single User:Skylar3214 5:53, 9 June 2014

No, that's not proof. It wasn't written by the websites staff, it was written by a random user. That person is no different than you or me randomly declaring it a single. Their source, MTV, doesn't refer to it as a single, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me  01:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
That's when you're lying to me. If I can't find it, then you do it yourself! User:Skylar3214 6:16, 9 June 2014
What? How is he lying to you? It's not a single, just because a random person on the internet said "It's a single" doesn't mean it is in fact a single.  SilentDan297 talk  01:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Then, you're lying too, and yes, it "does mean that it's a single". You're clearly operating under a false pretense. Now, you're starting to tempt me, both of you. User:Skylar3214 8:02, 9 June 2014

How am I "lying" to you? Here's a tip you clearly haven't picked up on yet - telltale sign of an author not actually bring a staff writer/editor is looking at their name. If someone is going by something that doesn't sound like a real name (Like "John Smith"), it's probably not part of the staff, and as such, is not usuable. So, when you come across something written by someone writing under the name "UnaMUSEd", you can typically assume it's not coming from a reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me  03:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't really care. You both lied to me for this. You want a better resource than mine, go do it yourself! User:Skylar3214 8:20, 9 June 2014

I have searched for this and nope it does not exist, it's not a single. You really need to check up what is considered reliable and what is not, cause at this rate, your the one under false 'pretence' and your just embarrassing yourself the way you act like a know it all. And tempt you? Is that a threat? Don't be ridiculous.  SilentDan297 talk  08:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Yo girls, " Final Masquerade" was released to the Australian Google Play store today as a single. Guess this discounts this entire argument now. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 09:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Is every song released as a digital download before the album automatically a single? If not, your source doesn't prove anything either. Sergecross73 msg me  10:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Umm... yes? Not sure what you're trying to point out... RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 10:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Aren't they sometimes just lesser "promotional singles" or even just "random song" status? Sergecross73 msg me  11:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, it was released as a single. A one-track single with artwork available to purchase. It was not released to radio, to my knowledge, so it's not a Promotional single. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 04:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
User:RazorEyeEdits, Google Play is not an exclusive of Australia, you know? The single is out worldwide --Zack Tartufo (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was told the link didn't work in other countries, so I couldn't say for certain that it was released outside my country. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 04:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that the status of being released as an individual song on Google Play makes it an official single. So far the songs with definite single status are Guilty All the Same and Until It's Gone, the other three songs individually released seem to be promotional singles if anything, is there any other reference other than Google Play?  SilentDan297 talk  12:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this. I'll drop it if a reputable source like Billboard calls it a single. Should be easy to find if they're real singles. Sergecross73 msg me  12:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Put the other three songs back to the way it was! They've already been confirmed as official singles! They're not PROMOTIONAL SINGLES!!! "Wastelands", "Rebellion", and "Final Masquerade" are real singles! User:Skylar3214 11:17, 10 June 2014

What reference is there apart from Google Play?  SilentDan297 talk  18:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
You tell me! I ain't telling you nothing! User:Skylar3214 12:19, 10 June 2014
Thats not how it works, you need to provide references to back up the information, which you are failing to do, so unless you do so, they are perceived as promo singles. I really do wan't to see an actual reference since that will settle the argument, no reference means a constant argument.  SilentDan297 talk  21:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't care! You do it yourself for lying to me, if I can't! User:Skylar3214 4:00, 10 June 2014
Fine then, then they remain as promotional singles. And I never said you can't use reliable sources, you just refuse to use them (if you have any).  SilentDan297 talk  23:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I still say they're singles, and I'm not going to change my mind about it cause THEY ARE!!! And you just said it now, so quit tempting me! User:Skylar3214 8:31, 10 June 2014
Per WP:V and WP:BURDEN, that argument has no value on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 03:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Nobody cares about that, now stop! We're all done here, if you keep up with the lies! User:Skylar3214 8:42, 10 June 2014
WP:V is the very core of what defines Wikipedia. How can you say "no one cares about that"? Sergecross73 msg me 03:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
'Cause I can, that's how! User:Skylar3214 9:04, 10 June 2014
Just stop and look at the article, otherwise no ones going to listen to you and if you keep going on you'r just going to get blocked. And I said they are Promotional singles, not actual Singles.  SilentDan297 talk  11:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Everyone, the OFFICIAL SITE OF LINKIN PARK is a reference apart from Google Play. Your "promotional singles" are just normal singles as a fact and now even for the band itself, so undo your nonsense edits. --Zack Tartufo (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a Primary source, not a secondary source. A secondary source is required to confirm its status. Find one and that will make it official.  SilentDan297 talk  17:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I've already been blocked from editing, so what are you going to do about it? User:Skylar3214 12:29, 11 June 2014
No you're not. If you were blocked, you couldn't have written that. Also, your block log is empty, show zero blocks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Is not already a secondary source Google Play?? --Zack Tartufo (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Please stop doing what you want ignoring even what the band itself says and delete that lying "Promotional" line from the three singles. --Zack Tartufo (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to ask anyone to stop, people are well within their rights to ask for better sources. Most of the sources given are not what Wikipedia would deem reliable. They're fansites, obscure blogs, or user (not staff) submitted news articles. You and Skylar both need to work on identifying reliable sources. A bunch are listed at WP:ALBUMS/REVSIT. Sergecross73 msg me 21:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I can only edit on talk pages for articles, not on pages themselves, like this one, and I'm still blocked from it! User:Skylar3214 2:36, 11 June 2014
That sounds more like page protection. Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, it isn't! User:Skylar3214 2:45, 11 June 2014


### A Word from the Maintaining Editor
Guys, a single is a music release, NOT a status, as SilentDan297 had mistakenly put it earlier. It usually has one track or more, and it usually has a play length of around 5 minutes or so. You don't release a song and have a criteria list to judge whether or not it is a single is or not; you just release a single, just like you would release an EP or Album. All three singles were released as digital downloads. "Wastelands" in particular was given a radio release. Simple as that. Don't know why you people are arguing over this. They're just singles. I'm surprised you people haven't come up with the idea that The Hunting Party isn't an album, because this is what essentially this argument is the equivalent to. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 22:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool, provide a source and we're set. Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The sources are in the above section, it's you that continues to ignore them. --Zack Tartufo (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't ignore them. I clearly responded. Those sources are not reliable. I even gave a link to some sources that would be considered reliable. There was no response to my comments. If anyone is being ignored, it's me. Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Sputnik music source - only staff written articles are useable WP:ALBUM/REVSIT, WP:SPS. Article writer "UnaMUSED" is not a staff member. Sergecross73 msg me 00:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Even then, why wouldn't a site like Google Play not be reliable? They sell music. I bought my copy of the "Final Masquerade" single from Google Play, by the way. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 00:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Because I don't see the word "single" anywhere at the link. Am I missing that word somewhere? Sergecross73 msg me 00:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems to me that you don't exactly understand. Are you assuming releases like "Wastelands" and "Final Masquerade" are albums or something, just because they don't have the word "single" in their name? To my knowledge, the iTunes Store is the only one that actually puts the words "Single" and "EP" on their releases. It's obviously a single, because, well, it's only got one track and it's remarkably short. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 00:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems you don't understand - This is Wikiprdia, and everything comes back to WP:V. Anything that you claim is so obvious should be easily sourced. So let's see it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There is seriously no need to repost the links once again, but in case you wanted to see the sources for the four millionth time, here's the "Wastelands", "Rebellion" and "Final Masquerade" singles available to purchase on Google Play. I still don't understand why you continue to believe no such singles exist, even when they're up for purchase, and many people have been shown the source many times already. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 03:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you. I want a source literally say "Song X is a single". GP sources don't say that word for word. Sergecross73 msg me 03:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Normally I do not resort to reciting the guidelines, since I'm a guy who's generally against having specific rules for a "free" and "open" encyclopedia, but I'm just going to have to call out WP:COMMONSENSE on this one. Yes, it is obvious. There exists these three singles. A secondary source is just a bonus point. Your argument is the equivalent of asking someone if they're happy or sad, and then wanting a secondary source to prove they they are happy/sad, or being told that "B" comes before "C" in the alphabet and then demanding a secondary source to prove that is correct. The single exists. It's there. You don't need a secondary source to prove that what you see now on Google Play is some hallucinogenic vision you see on your computer. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 03:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
If we depended just on any primary source I think every article would look different. A band can joke and falsify information on their social media sites whereas a reliable secondary sources are professional, they give you reliable information because it's their job to do so and to get it right. I'm very much siding with Sergecross73 when he says that the sources that you have given us so far are from blogs or user contributed services, not staff written and not from other actual reliable sources, and the Google Play links as he says DO NOT state that they are singles, the word 'Single' isn't even mentioned on those pages. Every reference you have given us have been bogus so they are regarded as Promotional singles instead of Official singles. And in response to RazorEye on his first comment, you just argued against yourself, " It usually has one track or more, and it usually has a play length of around 5 minutes or so." meaning these Google Play links don't match your own criteria! So that's that, no reliable source calls these a single, where as Gulty All The Same (examples: Radio.com, HipHopDX) and Until Its Gone (examples: WebCitation (preorder allows you to download both singles), AltWire) have reliable sources confirming they are, those are just a few examples. So if you could provide such sources, that be great! Until then, they are NOT official singles.  SilentDan297 talk  11:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I would just like to note that both Inquisitr [7] and MTV [8][9] have referred to Final Masquerade as a single. Also, Noise11 predicted that Final Masquerade will enter the Top 30 Australian singles charts [10]. —Dark 16:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
That's all I needed. MTV is a reliable, third party source. I remove my objections now. Sergecross73 msg me 16:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
@DarkFalls: Thank you! I have made the edits to the related articles, you are simply awesome!  SilentDan297 talk  18:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
All the songs have been released as a single. This is taken from the band's official website. Discography : Single Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 10:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please change the genre Hard Rock and Rap rock to Alternative Metal, Punk Rock, Hard Rock, and Rap Metal, because the majority of the songs are specified to these kinds of genre, and described it a a whole. Here are the reliable sources: http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/jun/12/linkin-park-the-hunting-party-review and http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/62680/Linkin-Park-The-Hunting-Party/ Thank you!
Ashskie (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The Sputnikmusic review is by a user not a staff members, so it cannot be used. Their opinion is just as valued in the article as yours or mine. The Guardian review only says that Shinoda likes a punk rock sound, they do not call it a punk rock album or anything close to that. The one usable source (The Guardian) does not mention alternative metal, rap metal, or hard rock for that matter. STATic message me! 06:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone please add the credits of the album from the link given below.
http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-hunting-party-mw0002664226/credits
Golu7276 (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed there has been edit warring over the addition and removal of several genres. Needless to say, that is very unhelpful. As such, any further addition/removal of genre without proper consensus will not be tolerated. Discuss and gain consensus. Thanks. —Dark 03:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, part of this (that involved me anyway, since I know that others were trying to add genres as well) was over whether or not the source cited (http://www.laut.de) for the genre I was trying to add (alternative metal) was reliable, not necessarily the genre itself. I have already brought up discussion on the source at WP:Album and WP:RSN. I will not be adding alternative metal again, until either consensus confirms that the source is reliable, or if I just find another source for the genre. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I sure wouldn't agree to the adding of "metal"(of any kind) to the list of genres. Linkin Park is NOT nor have they ever been metal. It's bad enough that "hard" rock is listed. After hearing Guilty All The Same, Until It's Gone and Wastelands calling The Hunting Party "hard" is just ridiculous to the point that it actually made me laugh. --Jimv1983 (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, it really comes down to what sources say though. If, in theory, reliable sources called them metal, it would be worth mentioning - we don't go by personal interpretations on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, after looking through some sources, not only Laut.de calls it alternative metal, but so does Hard Rock Haven and Mind Equals Blown. I'm not if Hard Rock Haven would be considered reliable, but here's evidence of Mind Equals Blown being reliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_45#Mind_Equals_Blown_as_reliable_source
I think I'll make a bold move and re-add the genre with that source. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion in that link is just one editors opinion. It is not consensus for the site being 1) reliable or 2) high enough prestige to have due weight in using them to classify a genre in the infobox. Please just continue to discuss, being bold at this point is out of question and is still going to be seen as in bad faith. STATic message me! 06:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, even so, I thought I would show a link to the evidence he provided. But okay then, I'll just do that. So, what now? Should we hold some kind of poll here or what? Kokoro20 (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
If you feel strong about it, provide all links that support the genre and see what others think. STATic message me! 06:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I may as well do it then. I made a sub-thread for the poll below. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
We seem to be neglecting the 12 already reliable sources used in the albums 'Professional Ratings' box in the 'Critical reception' section. These are the genres I have found on each page (excluding Metacritic) based on the reviews and not the listed genres that go with it:

AllMusic: rock, metal
Consequence of Sound: alternative metal,
The Guardian: hard rock
Loudwire: hard rock
The New Zealand Herald: rap rock
Revolver: punk, thrash, hard rock
Sputnikmusic: alternative rock, hard rock
The other sources haven't been mentioned since they don't even state any genres, but to me, Hard Rock should definitely be a key genre on this article, along with Alternative Rock/Metal as they are also commonly mentioned, the rest seem to be the odd ones out and should instead be mentioned in the Critical reception section.  SilentDan297 talk  11:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What about rap rock? Like alternative rock and alternative metal, it's a common label for the band, and it's explicitly stated in The New Zealand Herald review. It's more explicit than the Revolver review, where it just says it's a mix of punk rock, thrash metal and hard rock. Kokoro20 (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you there, the three genres should be alternative metal, hard rock and rap rock as it is also a common label for the album.  SilentDan297 talk  11:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
And to add, rap rock would be a far less controversial label than punk rock or thrash metal. The album contains influences of those genres in some areas, but I couldn't call the album either of those genres. Personally, I would considered the album to be more rap metal, rather than rap rock, but unfortunately, I haven't seen any sources for rap metal. So, I'm sticking with rap rock instead, as rap metal is a sub-genre of it anyway. Kokoro20 (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


### Genre Poll
I'll go ahead and notify some of the editors of this article. @RazorEyeEdits: @JDC808: @2016pearsoow: @Sergecross73: @Gbuvn: @Jacob Sudduth: @SilentDan297:
The following sources call it an alternative metal album: http://www.laut.de/Linkin-Park/Alben/The-Hunting-Party-93468 http://hardrockhaven.net/online/2014/06/linkin-park-the-hunting-party-cd-review/ http://mindequalsblown.net/reviews/linkin-park-the-hunting-party http://consequenceofsound.net/2014/06/album-review-linkin-park-the-hunting-party/
Would you support the addition of alternative metal to the infobox, alongside hard rock and rap rock (both of which are also sourced in the article) using any of these sources?  Thrown in either a support or oppose for the addition of the genre, based on the sources I listed above. I'll start first to show why I support this.
Support: Based on the evidence for Mind Equals Blown being reliable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_45#Mind_Equals_Blown_as_reliable_source). Alternative metal is not mentioned in the prose of that review, but in it's own section. But I don't see this being like Allmusic's sidebar. The reason Allmusic's sidebar shouldn't be used is because sometimes contradicts the prose (as stated at Wikipedia:ALBUM/SOURCES#Sources to avoid. And that source only lists one genre too, whereas AllMusic usually lists multiple genres. Update: Now the CoS review (a site actually listed at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES) explicitly supports alternative metal in the prose with the line "...this is far more an alt metal record than anything else." Kokoro20 (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Support - you've got the sources, and it seems like a pretty common label for this sort of band. Sergecross73 msg me 11:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Support: I don't even know how we could have this argument. You've got sources and the album doesn't even sound like a hard rock album. Plus, none of the singles that have been released off the album have been classified as hard rock. Soooo. I don't understand how an album can be hard rock if there are no hard rock songs on it. Jacob Sudduth   — Preceding undated comment added 12:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC) 

Considering how many sources support hard rock, I wouldn't agree with removing that. Kokoro20 (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
If this is hard rock then what is Minutes to Midnight? MTM is classified as a alternative rock/metal album and this album's soft songs are heavier than MTM's heavy ones (besides Given Up, which is classified as alternative metal.) I just don't understand how this album is so noticeably heavier, but classified as being softer. Jacob Sudduth   — Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Support: Even if they are not considered reliable, I believe if genres are constantly being referenced across the pages, it becomes more relevant, and since we have 4 pages describing the album as alternative metal, I think it should be mentioned along with hard rock.  SilentDan297 talk  11:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Consequence of Sound is definitely considered reliable though. One of the links I posted is from that site. Kokoro20 (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Even more reason for it then.  SilentDan297 talk  11:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Support: Consequence of Sound is reliable music website per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and it clearly labels the album as alt metal. I think its inclusion is completely fine per this source. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Support: Pretty much everything is already said. Gbuvn (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Support; several sources label the album as such and three genres isn't going to bloat the field or anything, unlike with something like Jamiroquai or of Montreal that falls potentially into dozens of genres, many of them with source backing available. Tezero (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Support: The Consequence of Sound source is very explicit: "this is far more an alt metal record than anything else". I would support its addition based off of this source. However, this should also be discussed as prose in (I'm thinking) the Composition section, as the infobox should summarize the article. The other sources given above can help to support "alternative metal" in this section too. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

This issue with album release dates(which seems to be an issue with many pages) needs to be fixed. This "first" release date idea is dumb. The info box should list the OFFICIAL release date as stated by the band and the recording studio. In the case of The Hunting Party the OFFICIAL release date as stated by Linkin Park and Warner Bros Records is Tuesday June 17th, 2014. The fact that some countries might have an early release date should not matter because those countries are not the source of the material. Every official mention of this album such as Linkin Park's web site, Warner Bros Records web site, Linkin Park's official Facebook page and Linkin Park's official YouTube channel ALL say June 17th so it makes the most sense to use that date. --Jimv1983 (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to update, I have added a discussion section on the page for album info box format to change the standard for release dates on albums. Using the first release date just causes confusion. --Jimv1983 (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
That's good, as my response was going to be that your complaint is bigger than just your article, and as such, changing the current guideline would need to be discussed somewhere else, like WP:ALBUMS. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I really can't believe this is such an issue to begin with. I always thought Wikipedia was suppose to be a source of information that was not only correct as possible but consistent with other sources. As I said I have added a section on the talk page for Template:Infobox_album to try and get this resolved. I'm not sure what has to be done. At what point can it be determined that a consensus has been reached if very few or no people contribute to the discussion. I'm getting tired of changing album release dates to more accurate and consistent information only to have it reverted. --Jimv1983 (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think your argument is entirely subjective and leads to fighting. So they picked something objective, like "first". Also, you may be a bit caught up in the moment. Months and years from now, a day or two difference really doesn't matter much... Sergecross73 msg me 03:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Track 4 "The Summoning" and track 10 "Drawbar" are instrumentals.
Source: I have the album.
Dawn Of Solace (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor Sing 09:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Allmusic the album is produced by bandmembers but in addition it is produced by Rob Cavallo and Emile Haynie. The album is said to be self produced but here there are extra producers. My question is "Is this correct?" Because Allmusic is a reliable source. Please share your ideas! Mike:Golu · [ ChitChat ] 08:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes AllMusic can be a little vague. For instance, I've seen them list three people as simply "vocals", when it was really one person who was the lead singer, and two others who just contributed guest vocals on one singular song. I wonder if that's what happened here? It's just a theory, but sometimes bands bring in an extra producers for singles. I can look into, but does anyone else know? Maybe it says in the album booklet? Sergecross73 msg me 11:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you are right. I think these producers would be producer for any existing single or any upcoming single. But due to this information I think we should keep them as a producer here. If any one has got the CD in USA, they can check this on the cover. In India all these names are included, because I have a copy of it. Mike:Golu · [ ChitChat ] 14:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is in the booklet, I can confirm that. It says: "Wastelands" co-produced by Rob Cavallo. "Final Masquerade" co-produced by Emile Haynie. --Gbuvn (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Cool, so, I believe what we typically would do, is take Rob and Emily out of the info box, and in the personnel section, have it read like:
Rob Covallo - production on "Wastelands"
This is how I typically see it and do it. Is this consistent with guidelines? Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The section in the infobox is not just to list the main producer(s) of the album, but to list all individuals or teams that provided production on the album. STATic message me! 17:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh okay. I must be used to video game guidelines then, where only key staff are listed in them. (Because sometimes there's like 5 composers or 10 designers involved. Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Made changes. In a related note, an editor added a category of "Emile produced albums". Is that appropriate if only one song of the album was produced by this person? Sergecross73 msg me 00:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

--72.251.108.80 (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)   Its obviously Nu Metal, Thrash Metal, Alternative Metal, and Alternative Rock.   Its's not Hard Rock in any way it's too aggresive.   Please change it because what you have down is misleading.   --72.251.108.80 (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to "get serious", you need to provide some reliable sources for these genre. Sergecross73 msg me 00:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, now I found a source that supports alternative metal that is actually listed at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. There's a line in the review that explicitly states "...this is far more an alt metal record than anything else." (alt metal is short for alternative metal) Here it is: http://consequenceofsound.net/2014/06/album-review-linkin-park-the-hunting-party/
Also, take a look at the above thread: Talk:The Hunting Party (album)#Genre Poll Kokoro20 (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's more the "thrash" and "nu" I find to be more questionable. (Alt rock being more redundant to what we already have). Sergecross73 msg me 11:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Please change the genre Hard rock and rap rock to Heavy metal, alternative metal, and rap metal.
121.54.83.69 (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 Not done The genres are currently under discussion - see the Edit warring over genre of album section above - please contribute any reliable sources you can cite to that discussion.  The genres will not be changed until consensus has been reached. Arjayay (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Instead of Linkin Park for all the track, how would this do:
All tracks produced by Brad Delson and Mike Shinoda, except "Wastelands" co-produced by Rob Cavallo, and "Final Masquerade" co-produced by Emile Haynie.

Mike:Golu · [ ChitChat ] 06:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is much better. Sergecross73 msg me 10:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Way better IMO. --Gbuvn (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

--72.251.108.51 (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)   Thank you for adding Alt metal.   But you still have Rock and Hard Rock there.   Those genres are misleading.   Nu Metal is the overall sound of this album.   Look at what Nu Metal is then change he genre because some of you people obviously don't understand what any of these genres are otherwise this would have been changed a long time ago.   Nu Metal should go first, then Thrash Metal, then Alternative Metal.   Thank and please change it right this time.   --72.251.108.51 (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Provide sources to back them up. Sergecross73 msg me 10:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.tinymixtapes.com/music-review/linkin-park-the-hunting-party
http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/album-groupe-Linkin_Park-nom_album-The_Hunting_Party-l-en.html
Better?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.108.51 (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC) 

I don't believe either would constitute a reliable source, and I didn't see "thrash" mentioned in either anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 11:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

In the CD there is a note from the band which could be included as a quote in the background section. Should we add this:

We are not SATISFIED.
We are HUNGRY.
HUNGRY for the VISCERAL.
CATHARTIC.
INSPIRED.
DEFIANT.
We are not HEROES or ANTI-HEROES.
We carry only the FLAG, that is our own.
Now is not the time to look back to see if anyone is FOLLOWING.
Now is the time to CHARGE FORWARD into the UNKNOWN.

THE HUNTING PARTY.
Mike:Golu · [ ChitChat ] 10:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If there are no sources that are referring to it or offering an interpretation, I don't think it is notable to be included. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
If journalists talk about it, it could be worth mentioning. But just listing it in the article is about as inappropriate as listing off entire song lyrics in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Myxomatosis57 and Sergecross73, without coverage in reliable sources it is just trivial. STATic message me! 20:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Well thank you for all your advices. If I get any sources about this, then I would let you know. Thank you. Mike:Golu · [ ChitChat ] 04:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey I got a source. Its here: "A note from the band". Should we add this now? Mike:Golu · [ ChitChat ] 04:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
No, that's a user review. Anyone can write those. They're not usable as sources. And again, you don't want to just "add it", just like you wouldn't want to randomly copy/paste the lyrics to "A Line in the Sand" just because a source talked about the song... Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh! I didn't notice that. I will try to find another source. Thank you. Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 09:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please add heavy metal as the genre of the album, it is clearly noticeable in the album as a whole. Thank you.
121.54.83.69 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 Not done Please read the section Edit warring over genre of album above, for the discussion on this. - Arjayay (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

|-
!scope="row"| Portuguese Albums (AFP) 
|align="center"|1
|-
188.251.129.88 (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done for now: portuguesecharts.com doesn't say (at least yet) that the album has peeked at #1 in the Portuguese Charts. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The songs in the album are actually Heavy metal, rap metal, and thrash metal, please add this category to avoid confusing. 
121.54.83.69 (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  And a call for consensus as well. Please read the talk page in its entirety for discussions on genres.  Sam Sailor Sing 03:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

--72.251.108.163 (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)   HAVE YOU PEOPLE EVEN HEARD THE ALBUM?!?!?!   LISTEN TO IT AND COMPARE IT TO THE GENRES OF Nu metal AND Thrash metal.   LINKIN PARK EVEN SAID THAT THEY TOOK INFLUENCE FROM Thrash metal AND HARDCORE PUNK ON THIS ALBUM.   EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT ONHOW IT'S THE HEAVIEST ALBUM THEY'VE EVER DONE.   EVEN THE BAND IS SAYING IT.   PLEASE CHANE THE ALBUM GENRE TO Nu metal, Thrash metal.   tHANK YOU FOR LISTENING.   --72.251.108.163 (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not about whether we've heard the album or not, it's whether reliable sources have. If an editor wants to remove all unreferenced genres, that would be fine, but don't just change one unreferenced genre with another unreferenced genre. And all caps is shouting. Turn your music down so you can hear yourself type over it. ;) Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and all the current genres are sourced in the composition section. STATic message me! 03:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
And I've already stated twice that some reliable sources need to be presented, not just people's personal observations on what the music sounds like. Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. The matter is anyone provide sources which are reliable and we would add it. Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 10:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There are five singles for "The Hunting Party", in the article, only 3 are mentioned, "Wastelands" and "Rebellion" are missing, please add these singles to the album's ones.
Source : http://www.lpassociation.com/music/
78.238.84.76 (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 Not done See prior discussions. Some appear to just be promotional singles, no sources said otherwise. A fansite won't change that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The album is certification is updated every week and now it currently holds a certifications of 4x Platinum, with the sales of 24,000 copies digital. The current certification is 3x Platinum with 18,000 sales. Next week it would be 4x Platinum. The sales of CD are not yet known, because they are not recorded. Mike:Golu · [ Confidential message ] 11:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I noticed a recent edit that changed this to an official single infobox. Before I immediately objected, I noticed the editor had left a note saying it was in the singles section for the Linkin Park website.
http://www.linkinpark.com/releases#/type/singles
http://www.linkinpark.com/releases/linkin_park/wastelands
Indeed it is. 
I wonder, shall we put this one in? If we do, we should change "Rebellion" to its original date as well. If the band says it is, in my opinion*, that satisfies it being in the list, at least. ( *There are probably guidelines to this that I don't know.) DannyMusicEditor (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There was a consensus last year from a past discussion not to list "Wastelands" as an official single, based on the sources brought up. However, if it's considered a single on the Linkin Park website, I have no problem with adding it. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
So how long should I wait before I add it if nobody has a problem? DannyMusicEditor (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I've just added it myself. If anyone reverts it, I could tell them to just see this discussion. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hunting Party (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 21:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I will be doing this. — Yash! (Y) 21:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


### Lead
self-produced - produced
Unlink Rock (music) in the second mention
Shinoda as simply "a rock record", serves a statement by the band against contemporary mainstream and active rock bands, accused by Shinoda - try not to repeat Shinoda in one sentence.
based off - based on
There is no mention of critical reception, commercial performance, charts or accolades.
Lead says there were two producers and infobox says four.
Include year in brackets after Meteora.
Unlink the common link studio album
material being improvisationally written in the studio by the band. - material being improvisationally written by the band.
There should be a "other uses" template at the top of the lead.
Machine Shop should be mentioned in the lead.
Use Los Angeles instead of LA.
All these have been fixed. Kokoro20 (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Another thing I just noticed, quotes should not be in the lead if possible per WP:QUOTE#Formatting so try to phrase them
I'm not sure how to go about fixing these.


### Background
electronic and experimental sound - they did release two studio albums with electronic sound so I believe it was no more experimental. It is just a suggestion and I wouldn't mind if you differ.
Since "experimental" is sourced, I think it would be best to keep that term in there.
link Living Things Tour
You need to include year in brackets after every time you mention the album.
Every time? I can understand the first time you mention a particularly, but every other time seems unnecessary.
My apologies. I was under a wrong impression. — Yash! (Y) 05:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Unlink the common link Demo (music)
were still commercially - were commercially
Right now we talk too much about the previous two albums that it goes off topic. Trim the last part of the first paragraph
produced and recorded demos - recorded and produced
continued the sound of A Thousand Suns and Living Things, for the band's sixth studio album during - continued the sound of A Thousand Suns and Living Things during... - Add the years as well
 which received a positive reception - which received positive reception
although - though
The big quote in the last part of the first paragraph is in German. Is the current part translated? If yes, you will need to include the original German quote (and trim the German and English quotes down) or find the English version of it.
The video in the source is in English, and contains that quote.
remove "itself"
composed and recorded the album in vein of the album - text could be clearer
Try not to repeat "composed and recorded"
Same goes for "in context"
inspired by artists members of the band listened to before the band started their musical career. - Make it clearer
remove "music magazine"
Period should be inside the quotes in the last quote.


### Composition
Period should be inside the quote if the person who quotes the quote ends the sentence. Check that throughout please
rock record "It's - rock record; "it's
stated - described
90s - 1990s
Unlink the common link Guitar solo
Reference for the media file?
The sample is of 168 kbps. That is too much. It should be 128 at most,.
The sample is of 30s. It should not be more than 10% of the original song.
I honestly have no idea how to work samples. Someone else uploaded it. Would it be better if I just removed it altogether?
Let it be for now. I will fix that once I get back to my home on 5th. — Yash! (Y) 05:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
many more guitar solos? Compared to what? And remove "many"
Everything else has been fixed. Kokoro20 (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


### Recording
Unlink chiropractor
Any more formal way of saying "marathon-recording"?
Check for the period issue
interview with Kerrang!: - interview with Kerrang! that
The mention of golden age hip hop, American rock, American alternative rock is not really needed


### Packaging
#### Artwork
Unlink album cover
Unlink single
remove Taiwanese American
Unlink visual artist
Unlink t-shirt
art book by Jen himself. - art book by him.
Period issue possibly


#### Title
Unlink rock bands
interview with Kerrang!. He explained: "We - interview with Kerrang! explaining: "We
"Period."


### Promotion
remove "American rapper"
Unlink lead single
Unlink music video
was also produced and premiered - premiered
Unlink video game
the seventh track on the album, - no need to mention that
June 11. - June 11, 2014
released early on the iTunes Store on June 1, 2014,[34] and was later released as a single on June 2 - released on the iTunes Store on June 1, 2014,[34] and later as a single on June 2
BBC radio 1 show to - BBC radio 1 to
the same day on June 3, 2014. - the same day.
Are there specific details about the place where the listening sessions were held in LA on May 23?
Not as far as I can tell.
What is Linkin Park Underground?
Basically, it's Linkin Park community, whose members sometimes gets to meet members of the band.
remove "American alternative rock band"
I believe the last paragraph needs some updating. And merge it with the paragraph above it.
The tour is apparently still going on.
Yeah, probably not so much, me thinks it be over. Also, why did someone find it necessary to include a picture of THIRTY SECONDS TO MARS on a page dealing with LINKIN PARK? if you want to see what 30S2M looks like, use the links embedded in the text. Cheers! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


### Reception
#### Critical reception
remove "UK national newspaper"
remove "Auckland-based newspaper"
"."


#### Commercial performance
29,000 copies in the United States. - 29,000 copies.
US - United States - for consistency


#### Accolades
where it lost to "Three Days Grace"'s Painkiller. - Italics and "" are wrongly used.
I will go through References tonight. It looks good to go. BTW, on a side note, I loved their electronic work ("Iridescent" and "Waiting For The End" are my favourites by them). I am not really a metal fan but I enjoyed "In The End", "Numb" and few others. Didn't really like this album, what about you? — Yash! (Y) 10:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've always been a fan of their first two albums (Hybrid Theory and Meteora). This one is my favorite album by them since Meteora. I also like some songs from their other three albums though. In fact, "Lost in the Echo" from Living Things is one of my favorite songs by the band overall. Also, everything from above should be fixed now. I'll get to the references later. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


### References
Dead links [11]
I actually looked through all the sources before nominating this, and I have noticed that. The problem is, I couldn't get any archives for those pages through Internet Archive.
#20 needs more parameters
#27 not MTV.com, use MTV and the publisher is Viacom
#40 same as above
#49 use linkinpark.com
#60 TDT should be in italics
#62 Billboard in italics
#63 same as above
#71 needs more parameters
#75 same as above
#82 needs work
#84 same as above
#100 same as above
#103 same as above
#104 same as above
#105 same as above
Needs work, as in how?
The website should be written in the reference in the work parameter without italics. — Yash! (Y) 13:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed that now. Although, they appear in italics automatically in the work parameter. Kokoro20 (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
#113 needs accessdate
Accessdate won't work on that, for some reason.
#114 any specific title? Link? If not, best to remove the doubful claim
#135 needs more parameters
#143 same as above
#144 Loudwire is not italicised while previously it was.
Everything else should be fixed now. Kokoro20 (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I will deal with the audio tonight. — Yash! (Y) 13:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Kokoro20 I am unable to do it. The site I knew is not working anymore. If you remove it, I will pass this. Thanks, — Yash! (Y) 16:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Yash!, I have now removed that. Kokoro20 (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Nice work guys! Pleased to see it made GA. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Hunting Party (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140531091003/http://lpunderground.com/texas_summit to http://lpunderground.com/texas_summit
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140126163816/http://www.officialcharts.com:80/archive-chart/_/10/2014 to http://www.officialcharts.com/archive-chart/_/10/2014/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Hunting Party (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090625015122/http://music.ign.com/articles/996/996814p1.html to http://music.ign.com/articles/996/996814p1.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ifpi.fi/tilastot/virallinen-lista/artistit/Linkin%2BPark/The%2BHunting%2BParty
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.officialcharts.de/album.asp?artist=Linkin%20Park&title=The%20Hunting%20Party&cat=a&country=de
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)