Wikipedia

Talk:Limp Bizkit/Archive 3

< Talk:Limp Bizkit
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Sergecross73 in topic The Unquestionable Truth (Part 1)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

The Unquestionable Truth (Part 1)

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Hi. I have noted that The Unquestionable Truth (Part 1) is regarded as an EP all over Limp Bizkit-related pages. Allmusic and the band's site itself don't consider it as such, but rather as a full-lenght album. Take a look at here and here. I will clean it out unless anyone disagrees. Maimai009 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Its and EP no mater how you look at it, its to short to be an album. Just look at Alice in Chains Jar of Flies its longer the The Unquestionable Truth (Part 1) just consider it a studio EP.[1] IT doesn't make it any less of an album, just like how jar of flies in one of Alice in Chains best albums their just EP albums not studio albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feedmyeyes (talk • contribs) 19:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for giving your opinion. Just take a look at Weezer's 2001 album. It's shorter than TUT, and it is an album. The fact is that neither the band nor the label nor allmusic (which is a reputable third-party source) regard the album as an EP. It's just a standard studio album. Maimai009 09:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

When you search on any music website to purchase the album, almost all list it as an EP, including Amazon and eBay. Not to mention there was very minimal advertising regarding the release, something that LB has done extensively with their full length albums I think we should revert the pages back the way they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifthhorizon (talk • contribs) 03:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

They didn't advertise it because Fred Durst wanted it to be an underground album. eBay listings are based on the sellers' choosing. Retailers are not reliable sources. WTF (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a mini album - I think by definition this means it is an ALBUM of sorts. Particularly as it is a concept piece - the idea of an album is enough songs together to have some larger whole made by their cohesion. (Chill (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

Is there an unofficial rule that an album has to have a certain amount of songs so that it is considered an album or EP? Portillo (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Most sources say album, not EP. Do not change it. It doesn't matter if you think it's too short. Frank Zappa's Apostrophe was only 30 minutes and it is an album. -- the butterfly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.221.222.43 (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The lead should say "nu metal" not "rap rock". That is what the majority of sources call the band. I'm sorry that the term isn't fashionable, but the band Limp Bizkit is more frequently associated with nu metal than any other genre. They owned it. Fred Durst said he was proud to be a part of nu metal. They are a nu metal band. That should be the lead.

I'm not saying this out of hate, I.E., "oh nu metal sucks, this band sucks so they should be associated with the genre that sucks"... Limp Bizkit is a *great* nu metal band. That's their genre. The sources calling them rap metal and rap rock are conflating those terms with nu metal, they mean to say Limp Bizkit is a nu metal band. -- the butterfly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.221.222.43 (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see the discussions above. The option with the strongest consensus had been rap rock. (Or just "rock", but I imagine we can virtually all agree that's a step in the wrong direction, and was merely proposed as a "better than no genre at all" option than anything else.) Anyways, regardless, nu metal is featured prominently in the infobox and musical styles section, and both genre are extremely similar in the scheme of the history of the world's music, so I really don't see much of an issue here. They're still prominently called a nu metal band. Sergecross73 msg me 12:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The Unquestionable Truth - Album or EP?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

An IP recently brought up this concern - claiming that its current classification as an EP was wrong, and that it should be considered an album. And while I first thought this was misguided, upon looking around, it seems like that's actual plausible. Mainstream, reliable sources like Rolling Stone and AllMusic explicitly call it an album, not an EP.

Looking for counterpoints before making the changes. I'm asking here because discussion is minimal at TUT's talk page, and the prior discuss on this in 2011 didn't really go anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Conversely, Wes Borland directly called it an EP in a 2012 interview here, which is from Loudwire, also a reliable source. It seems like he'd be the end authority on this. Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Limp Bizkit. 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:

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) 11:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Rap rock

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I know some sources call them that, but there’s a lot more that call them nu metal. The lead isn’t vague enough, and encompasses one of three sources genres. It’s could be more helpful to have the lead saying “Limp Bizkit is an American heavy metal band” or saying “Limp Bizkit is an American rock band”. Since only having one of their genres as the lead gives a wrong impression. ~SML • TP 13:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read the massive discussions held a year or two back a few sections up. There was only consensus for rap rock or nu metal. It took forever to even get to that point. I think it’s best to stick to that. In general, a band like Limp Bizkit isn’t best defined, nor is it primarily classified by reliable sources, as merely a rock or metal band. That approach works on a lot of bands, but not particularly ones like this, where rock and rap were so predominantly used. Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Genre

Latest comment: 5 years ago25 comments13 people in discussion

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE GENRE? Who has douts about Limp Bizkit's music being rapcore???? AND since ALL reliable sources know them as Rapcore AND alternative metal, Why the hell Someone took it from their genre???

Ok I fixed it.and someone moved it adding "Alternative metal is not Honest" and "Funk Metal is not needed" .Hey!This is not about your opinions! We have reliable sources for all that.Besides many Limp Bizkit songs like Nookie wich is a combination of rapcore,Nu metal AND ALT METAL, and Lonly world and many other songs are Alt metal! About funk metal, yea it might be not good to be mentioned in infobox, But it IS their style in rapcore.(It could be mentioned in Style part wich this article doesnt even have and thats why I put it in infoboX) Solino the Wolf (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you regards alt-metal. They are mainly a nu metal band, at least that's what I consider them. There's been a fair amount of genre-switching going on, specifically removing genres that LB clearly do represent - but if you want to add a genre, be sure to back it up with references. SMC (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Metal and Funk Metal are not needed which is why i keep removing them because if you think they are classed as these then you dont know your genres, yeah sure allmusic might list them both as the bands genres but that is obviously incorrect. Elements of the two genres in the band's music are VERY minimal as far as i can tell, therefore I strongly beleive that Nu metal, Rapcore and perhaps Rap Metal are the only genres that are needed on the bands page, as they obviously come under those genres much more than anything else. 86.133.124.103 (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote the above. I've always known that LB is nu metal at the core. Funk metal doesn't really come into it. And I've got to say I don't like allmusic as a "reliable" source, either, since their categories are highly unlikely to have been given much thought. SMC (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
As allmusic has been used as a reliable source in many articles in wikipedia,We cant count it out of sources cause we THINK it's not reliable.yea sometimes what is wrote there is just shit but as I said,it has been used in many other articles.And can anyone answer me if "Build the Bridge" is not alt metal then what is it?And if they are only rapcore and nu metal why do many songs like Phenomenon,Nookie,Full nelson,Hot dog and MANY OTHER songs contain alternating verses and chorses?(These songs are rapcore,nu metal AND Alte metal)And about funk,what genre can we say for "ReArranged"?as I said before you're right Funk metal is not their genre but is strongly their style in rap rock(in songs like Counterfeit,Stink finger and many others) and since the article doesnt have STYLE part there's nowhere else to put it.
Besides,as a reliable source which has been used in many other articles sais they are funk and alt,You need a reliable source to say they are not if you want to change it!Solino the Wolf (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Build a Bridge sounds more like and Alternative rock style power ballad to me, oh and I have found reliable source from Musicmight which states they are Nu Metal and Rap metal so I will add in the source. 86.141.165.253 (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

1.Rap Metal is a subgenre of rapcore and they both are subgenres of raprock.on of them will be enough to describe their genre.(you can look in Rap rock article in wikipedia).2.As I said,as a reliable source (which has been used in many other articles) sais they are alt metal and funk metal,there is no reason not to add it until you got a source which sais they are not.(I told this before but as nobody answers I'll change it.If you have a source which sais they are not funk metal or alt metal you can bring it here and change the genre) Solino the Wolf (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok I found more sources for Alt metal and funk metal.Now it's not only allmusic.Solino the Wolf (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nu metal is basically a derivative of Alternative metal among various other genres, so why keep adding it in when they are clearly Nu metal for the most part? so basically just that alone is enough.86.143.232.16 (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right.But even if you look at KoRn's article you might find alt metal in infobox.I think it's because although most of Nu metal songs are alternative metal too,There are nu metal songs which are not alternative(for example Soulfly's debut album had a lot of nu metal songs which were not alt metal and also Korn's debut) So when we mention both,it will make it more clear.Solino the Wolf (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

HEY I'M SICK OF THIS!ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA RULES,YOU CAN'T MOVE A STATMENT WHITH RELIABLE SOURCE ! At least talk it first HERE then change it!You really dont know how to use wikipedia!! Solino the Wolf (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright very well, i will give up in this editing war against you. But the way i see it is I was simply removing a genre that they clearly are not catergorised as regardless of what some source might say, Korn are classed as Alternative Metal because pretty much every album that came after Follow the leader has that sort of sound as its hard to pick out the hip hop influences in comparison. On the other hand Limp Bizkit have pretty much been categorised Nu Metal throughout their career so far.86.143.232.16 (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

you removed Funk again!I can name many songs that are alt metal: "Nookie","phenomenon","Hot Dog","Full nelson" and "Take a look around"(all mixtures of rapcore,nu metal and alt metal)"It will be Ok" and "my way" (Nu metal and Alt metal)and even "Nobody like you" is kind of alt metal!Solino the Wolf (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes i deleted it because to call them Funk metal is stupid, I have gave up doing editing wars with you but i know a user called Prophaniti who often deletes Alternative metal from Nu metal band pages, so hopefully he will come across this one soon, if not ill contact him about it. 86.143.232.16 (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

do as you want.we are not here to fight.we are here to make the article the best for the readers.You can tell all the sources that their stupid to call LB funk.I don't know.As I said before.Funk is their style in rapcore and if the article had "style and influences"part it should be mentiond there.Bus as it doesn't,It's to be in infobox.Solino the Wolf (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Solino: with regards to the sources you added in recently, I just wanted to address them here for clarity. Yahoo music and buzz are directly taken from allmusic, which we're already using. Mahalo appears to be user-edited, just like wikipedia. Artistopia also appears to simply be copied from wikipedia. So I'm afraid none of them can be used as reliable sources, sorry. Prophaniti (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE The same stupid cunt that left a nasty comment in the "Band Name" section also left another nasty comment here. I removed it, of course, and I need to say again: ban the fucking user now. And I don't mean temporarily. --LordNecronus (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Genre should be Nu metal. rap metal, and rapcore, Fred Durst even said their band was rapcore, so it should be added. Drgreen19 (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Durst has called Limp Bizkit Nu Metal and a few other things (Funk in a song, can't recall which one), but in this specific interviews, he calls the band rapcore: http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=142583 I don't know if the one thrash metal song they have (Head to the Barricade) is genre-defining in any sense... Rapcore needs to be added for sure though... Other than that, the genre definistion of LB is pretty good as of now. L.C.E.C. (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The genre should be Rap metal, nu metal, rapcore, alternative rock. It doesn't matter what Fred Durst said, many bands have classifyed themselves in a genre that they weren't, for example Motorhead calls themselves rock and roll when they are obviously more speed metal. Limp Bizkit's overall genre was more rap metal than anything else since they included much more hip hop and metal elements than anything else which is a characteristic of rap metal Metalfan72 (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it should not matter what the band member says, only what their sound actually is. But with that said, their sound is NOT Alternative Rock, its Hard Rock with a bit of Hip Hop added in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapsfly (talk • contribs) 15:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
You’re responding to a 5+ year old conversation, so there’s probably not much point in chiming in here. If you’ve got something new to add, then you could start a new discussion at the bottom of the talk page, but you’re going to want to base your arguments around what third party sources say, not your personal assessments. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh Im sorry was there a time limit to respond. This discussion may be never ending and I will not start a new topic because I am responding to this exact topic. What are you even spewing? My opinion matters as much as anyone else's here who did not source a third party. This is the talk page after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapsfly (talk • contribs) 00:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I’m not sure why you’re going on the offensive here. I was saying that as a helpful pointer to you. Most people don’t purposely comment on discussions that stopped years ago to editors that haven’t logged on to edit for years. They’d find it to be a waste of time, like talking into an empty hallway. I figured you’d misread or missed the dates. Of course there’s no time limit, but it doesn’t make sense to reactivate an old discussion when there’s many newer discussions that are the current consensus that shape the current article. I mean, look at the article. It obviously is totally not according to this discussion. Go read the newer discussions on the articles current form. Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I would say they are rap metal, nu metal, and alt metal for sure nearly any source will tell you they falling within atleast one of those genres.--71.173.42.162 (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC) limp bizkit are more of a hip hop group so they should only be listed under rap metal and rapcore.nu metal is more like korn and slipknot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

New album

Can someone make an article for the new album? Its pretty much confirmed its coming out so please make one.

The Unquestionable Truth (Part 1)

Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

Under the Discography section of the article, Limp Bizkit's major releases are listed; however, their 2005 EP The Unquestionable Truth (Part 1) is not listed. This is because many editors quickly undo the edits as they think it is against Wikipedia's guidelines. It is true, that Wikipedia says not to include EPs and other non full-length albums; however, the exact quote is: "Live and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc. should generally not be included." GENERALLY is the key word here. Another quote from the WikiProject Discographies Style's page: "In an ideal situation however, any deviations from the guidelines should be with a clear purpose that is unique to the particular artist and situation in question." This supports the fact that the guidelines of not including EPs is NOT set in stone, and that it should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Do you think The Unquestionable Truth (Part 1) should be listed among the other albums? Xanarki (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Yes. My reason for this particular release is as follows: #1. It was treated as a proper studio album by the band. Despite the fact that it did not get a marketing budget (it was the band's goal to try to create buzz by no marketing, modern day example, Avenged Sevenfold's The Stage), it was still treated as a proper studio album, on par with the others. Many major music publications reviewed it, and it appeared on many charts, just as the others did. It also had music videos and a single; thus, the EP serves as a foundation, just like the other albums did. #2. It is historically misleading to not include it. It was released between the albums Results May Vary and Gold Cobra. Without including it, there is a small misleading gap. It is also historically important because it features the return of important member Wes Borland. #3. The EP has its own section in the article, and even so, is mentioned at the introduction, but yet, is not even included in the list? That sounds important enough to be included, in my opinion. #4. Everything I said can be applied to other remix albums, compilations, live albums, and maxis by the band, and these statements are obvious but for the ones unfamiliar: all of the material is brand new, none of the material is live or remixes or re-recordings, the release is not a promotional item and was widely available, the EP is more than 15 minutes in length, and the EP contains more than 5 songs. #5. Limp Bizkit has a separate discography page. This is actually in favor of including the EP in the main article, because unlike the discography page, the main article would classify the EP as equally important, instead of confining it to its own section.

The only argument that I can see someone saying, is them pointing to the vague ("generally included, etc.") guidelines posted on Wikipedia. Besides, an EP CAN be classified as a studio album, actually! As per the UK Chart Supervisory Committee, anything under 20 minutes is considered either a maxi single or a regular single (with no mention of EPs for anything over). As per the U.S. Recording Academy, anything under 15 minutes and 4 different songs or less is considered a single (with no mention of EPs for anything over). With these 2 classifications in mind, an EP is indeed a studio album; however, the RIAA has a cut-off of 30 minutes to classify as an EP though, so, I understand that if you were to use RIAA as a reference (however, keep in mind, this particular EP is only 17 seconds short of the 30 minute mark).

As mentioned at the beginning, every page should be treated on a case-by-case basis. You could direct me to other bands that don't have an important EP included (there are plenty, yes). That is simply because no one has bothered to argue the case yet. It is more telling when there are bands that DO have an important EP included. Nine Inch Nails is a great example, as the general agreement was to include not 1, not 2, but 3 EPs, as their releases are histortically important and their contents are individually new. Guns N' Roses is another example, as their 1 EP was agreed to be included in the list, despite half of the release being (new) live tracks as well. The Beatles is a completely different example, as their release Magical Mystery Tour was originally an EP in the UK. Then, when released in the US, they added some outtakes/singles, and it became a compilation; however, this EP/compilation is listed among their major releases on the main page. Led Zeppelin is another odd example, as their compilation Coda is included in the list, as it was marketed on the same level as their other albums. Again, you COULD point me to other pages without EPs listed, but, this proves that the argument is in its infancy stages. (note: my apologies to anyone that remembers me from NIN, you might be getting hit with some deja vu right now). Xanarki (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  • No. EPs aren’t generally listed in discography sections when they’re listed in separate discography articles. Because Limp Bizkit discography exists, this is unnecessary. Sergecross73 msg me 12:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – The style essay is frequently misunderstood: the key idea is that artist discography sections "should also provide a summary of the musician's major works". If fact, labeling the section "Discography" is misleading, since the effect is to exclude "minor" releases, which are normally part of a discography. While live albums and EPs generally are not seen as major works, this may be overcome by showing reliable sources that treat them as such (Frampton Comes Alive! is frequently given as an example). In this case, The Unquestionable Truth (Part 1) is noted in the band's AllMusic bio,[2] but sources are not being provided that indicate it is considered by others to be a "major work". I'd change my vote to "yes" if this were shown. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • And that’s just it - the EP was a commercial and critical flop, released to little impact after the band had fallen from mainstream relevance. I mean, there’s a reason why they never released a part 2 or 3. Sergecross73 msg me 15:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Thank you for going in depth with your answer and providing some sort of background. My apologies for not including sources on any of my statements. I forgot that non-fans might see this discussion (and quite frankly, I'm surprised that I'm even going to these lengths for a band that I'm not passionate about, but hey, Wikipedia for ya). @Sergecross73: You are completely missing the point here. Just because it didn't sell as many as the other albums doesn't mean it's not a major work. The many reasons that I mentioned above and below, is what dictates it as a major release, NOT the sales numbers.
music video for a song on the EP, showing that the EP serves as a foundation - I know YouTube isn't an actual source, but this simply proves that there is a video.
promotional radio single for a song on the EP, showing that the EP serves as a foundation - Discogs entry proving that there was a promo single released.
35 different versions of the EP released - 35 versions of this EP got released. Their other studio albums got 51, 61, 77, 56, and 22 versions, whereas the vast majority of their singles and "lesser" releases don't even come close to those numbers.
official website listing it among their major releases - After the release of this EP, but before the release of their next album, it was listed on the band's official website along with their other full-length studio albums (and their 1 remix album and 1 compilation album, but because of reasons I stated earlier about new material, those 2 are excluded from this topic).
news article about the release - An MTV (probably the most popular music news website in 2005) article about the release of the EP, which importantly, states "With Wes Borland back from his three-year absence, Limp Bizkit are releasing their fifth studio album."
another news article about the release - An IGN (extremely popular gaming site that covers other topics) article about the release of the EP, which importantly, consistently using terms such as "fifth studio effort" or "fifth album".
chart archive of the EP - Billboard's archive on the release of the EP, as it shows the album appeared on 5 different charts, similar charts as the full-lengths appeared on. Xanarki (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
None of that is atypical for your average EP released by a popular musician though. Look closer, at the bigger picture, for context. The EP was a minor release with little impact. 4 years prior, they released an album that went platinum in its first week of release. Four years later, they release the EP that doesn’t even hit 30k in its opening week. Not even close to what their albums were doing back then. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I just don't understand why you're using sales figures and popularity as the basis for this argument, though. Their next album Gold Cobra was pretty much a flop as well, if not worse. It's just an indication of their declining popularity. Also, it was their intention to market the EP on a low level, but not the point where it was an obscure promotional EP. I know that personal views can't be taken as a source, but I remember when this came out back in 2005, and everyone literally treated it as a proper studio album (as 2 of the articles I posted shows, I'm certain I can find a dozen more but MTV and IGN are big enough names). The bigger picture is that this is an important release by the band. Maybe not financially, but historically, it most certainly is. Xanarki (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Well how else to you decide if something was a major work in their discography? It wasn’t reviewed well. Didn’t win awards. Isn’t featured in positive retrospectives. It isn’t particularly a prominent part of their existence now. These are the types you consider, not whether there were singles, YouTube videos, or MTV coverage, or any of these other mundane bulletpoints you keep bringing up. Any EP released by anyone remotely popular would have that in 2005. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see a different perspective on this subject, as it seems your knowledge on the concepts of discographies and major releases is inadequate to this subject. My "mundane bulletpoints" are facts surrounding the release of this EP, and you're attempting to skew history based on personal opinions, financial aspects, popularity, and awards. If anything, those things you keep bringing up are just 1 of multiple factors that decides a major release. Just because this EP didn't have the popularity-driven aspects does not exclude it from being a major release. Xanarki (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I’ve been working in band discographies for over a decade. If we went by your standards of “had singles” and “got RS coverage” then virtually every EP with an article would be mentioned in discography sections. This is obviously not how it’s handled, conceptually or in practice. If you truly wanted more input though, I’d recommend cutting back on these massive rambling responses though. Giant walls of texts scare new people away from jumping in. Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
And I've been on working on music articles for over 15 years. The reason why you're not seeing articles with important EPs listed is because no one has bothered to argue against it yet. I understand that when concepts and practices are altered, it can be confusing and scary (especially from an admin's view that is accustomed to such solidified guidelines). As I said in my initial post, these arguments are in its infancy stages. I started with Nine Inch Nails and I'm working my way thru (both adding and removing EPs, example, I removed EPs from Incubus). I apologize that you think my bulletpoints are mundane, and that my responses are ramblings to you. But on the contrary, your responses are repetitive and predictable (from my first post: "The only argument that I can see someone saying, is them pointing to the vague ("generally included, etc.") guidelines posted on Wikipedia. | from your first response: "EPs aren’t generally listed in discography sections when they’re listed in separate discography articles.")
But yeah, these blocks of paragraphs might drive other people away. If no one new responds, I'll either make a new RFC after deleting this one, or post my question in a different place.Xanarki (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I know little about LB (I occasionally monitor music RfCs), so I'd be happy to defer to the experts. However, just based on what I've seen so far, it doesn't look like a major work. Besides the charts and promo/press releases, critics aren't speaking of it in a way that suggests its impact/importance/popularity in LB's official canon. If MTV said something like "With Wes Borland back from his three-year absence, Limp Bizkit have released one of their most accomplished/refreshing/daring/whatever album in years" and a couple more writers had acknowledged it similarly, I'd say yes. Sorry, but that's how I see it. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Im not trying to pull rank, I’m just saying I know what I’m talking about, and that I’m not falling for these awkward attempts to discredit me. Please just focus on the dispute and not this “your knowledge is inadequate” and “change is scary” nonsense. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
When you called my research mundane is when I took it personal. I'm sorry for retaliating. In regards to the subject at hand, I am honestly surprised that the 2 of you share the idea that, just because this release didn't get outstanding reviews or platinum sales, that it is not on an equal level as the full-length albums. The album after this, Gold Cobra, got worse sales numbers and equal reviews; however, the only difference is that 1 is a full-length and 1 is an EP (an EP that is only 17 seconds short of being a full-length). I think that I should have added EPs to lesser known bands, to give more credibility to my argument (I got lucky that there were many fans of NIN that agreed to adding that band's EPs), so maybe I made a mistake here. If no one else comments within the week, I'm just gonna re-visit this issue in the future, as such a radical change to standard practices should began elsewhere. Again, sorry for retaliating, and have a good one + be safe out there. Xanarki (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Its okay. For the record, ”Mundane” was not meant as a shot at you, it’s nothing personal. If anything, it’s a shot at Limp Bizkit. Or the music industry. They’ve given you very little to work with here. There’s nothing but run-of-the-mill coverage on this EP. Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Limp_Bizkit/Archive_3&oldid=1141543940"