Talk:The Emptiness Machine

Excessive background

This version of the article is inappropriate. It's an WP:UNDUE issue to have 75% of the article not even be about the song. A little is okay, but this is far too much bloat.

Also, please follow WP:BRD. This should only be included if/when you have consensus, not the other way around. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

See also User talk:Left guide#Discussion, courtesy ping as well to @Rockmusicfanatic20: Left guide (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I added the {{off topic}} tag to the background section because the first paragraph (which is most of the section) fails to discuss the song even though some of its cited sources do. I believe the section needs to be re-written. Left guide (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

While I feel like this is used to display context around the song, if I have written it inappropriately, feel free to correct it in the way it should be. Thanks, sorry for any inconvenience. It has been a hard time lately and I haven't been thinking straight with a loss of a close relative, it has been sloppy. It may not be an excuse, but I have been way too shitty and stubborn like this. Hope you two are doing well, and I apologise for me making things difficult in articles, again correct anything you feel is wrong. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Rockmusicfanatic20: Sorry for your loss, and I hope things get better. For now, I think that adding a {{further}} hatnote atop the section linking back to the greater detail and context covered at the band article would be a useful change for readers. Meanwhile, I'll see what I can cook up in my sandbox regarding the song to possibly improve the section so it's more on-topic.

(p.s. thanks for saving the Not Alone (Linkin Park song) article. It's one I am fond of and one of the first LP songs I got into back in the day. I actually found a book source mention of that music video that I might add at some point.) Left guide (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2024

Writing credits are inaccurate for the song. They should be Mike Shinoda, Brad Delson & Dave Farrell per Genius.com. The current listed source (Tidal) is inaccurately listed showing band members as composers when Tidal details them as what instruments/vocals are played. Mike Shinoda is listed as the producer.

https://genius.com/Linkin-park-the-emptiness-machine-lyrics 173.64.114.184 (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Genius shows the band members credits that is edited in by users, Tidal is used by the credits that it intergrated by the members of the band itself (coded in before release), like Spotify as it is a streaming service. User generated sources aren't used to showcase song credits, as it is inaccurate to do so. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk)

SentireAscoltare

Due to MoonJet's incredible find of a genre found which was reported on SentireAsoclate, an Italian music website. There has been some caution surrounding having it included because it is unfamiliar to English readers. Per WP:RSUEC, non English sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. SentireAscolatre is an Italian website which has been active since 2002, which has over 50 employed members of staff working on it.[1] Additionally, their Facebook page which is linked to their website has over 100K likes/followers.[2] If they weren't a notable Italian music website, they definitely wouldn't have this many people following them. It is essentially an equivalent of an Italian Rolling Stone. On the Italian Wikipedia, this website has been sourced in over 750 different articles.[3] If this was an English website, this would easily be seen to pass WP:RS with flying colours. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

My concern was not their language used, or how many Facebook likes they have - both are irrelevant to Wikipedia's source reliability standards. No idea why your mind went there first, as I didn't say anything to that capacity.

My concern is whether they have editorial oversight/editorial policy, and whether or not they had writers with professional credentials. I only gave it a brief skim, but I wasn't actually seeing that. Do you have any counterpoints on metrics that actually matter? Sergecross73 msg me 13:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The writers have professional credentials because the website is a company employing these writers. The one who wrote the article, Edoardo Bridda, lists SentireAscolatare as his employer on LinkedIn.[4] On LinkedIn, SentireAscoltare lists themselves as a media production digital magazine with 31 direct employees.[5] They also have an editor-in-chief who of course has to oversee all the final edits, to which is who orchestrates their editorial policy.[6] In addition, they also have a full privacy policy of guidelines. [7] To which my previous comparison of calling them the Italian equivalent of Rolling Stone (hence the comments of notability in their country and site followers to showcase their notability to Wikipedia policies of reliable sources, of which all reliable sources need to be notable) is not inaccurate as Rolling Stone also have a similar privacy policy on their website.[8] Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

There's...a lot of flaws here.

• Citing the website they work for isn't a credential. That's circular logic - we're trying to establish the website is a reliable source. You can't cite a writer writing for that same website as proof of being reliable when we haven't established the website itself is reliable.
• Please read up on what a privacy policy is. Privacy policies are not editorial policies - they're very different things. Their privacy policy documents how they handle users/readers data. Stuff like http cookies. That has nothing to do with editorial control of their published content.
• All you did was link to a "contact us" page, which had the name of an editor with zero credentials. That's not proof of an editorial policy.

This is...not even close. Sergecross73 msg me 16:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)