Talk:Angels Fall (song)

Genre
Normally, a genre of "Alternative rock, post-grunge" would be acceptable because (I think) the song's genre can be inherited from the band's genre, but, the genre field has been the subject of dispute therefore we should just use "rock" (which is what the song is categorized under on iTunes and radio stations). If any sources can be found specifying the genre of the song further than rock, then we can use that, but until then, please don't change the genre field anymore. Jacedc (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * IPs change genres on music articles all the time, usually without any sources or explanation. I looked for a source for genres after I had seen you changed it back to "rock", but I couldn't find any. Most of the time, it's just not easy to find a source that states the genre of a song. I would just take the approach to label the song under the same genres the band is sourced as on their main article, since this doesn't seem to be a big departure from their normal sound anyway, and revert anyone who changes them without sources or explanation. Kokoro20 (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I can see taking that approach, but like I said, since it's so contentious I think it'd be better if we just required a source for anything at all. Perhaps we can change that when the article isn't so new anymore and doesn't attract much attention. Jacedc (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, either way, I'm sure IPs will continue to insist to have the genre more specific than just "rock". Perhaps if we took my approach, there won't be as much genre changing. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There will be. In fact, I actually did leave it as "post-grunge, alternative rock" for a while, but then some people added "hard rock", etc. (All IP editors). If it continues to happen then the best course of action would just be to have it semi-protected. But I think protecting it may be a little premature, as the article is very new. Jacedc (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there probably still be changes, but my point is that their probably won't be as much. I seen that one person changed "alternative rock" to "alternative metal", but that's it. Looking at the article history, one person changed it to "hard rock" while it was still saying just "rock". Also, semi-protection should only be requested if it gets persistent enough, like a genre change everyday for a week or something like that. Otherwise, the request would probably be rejected. Kokoro20 (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've seen other articles get semi-protected just for genre changes that are not every day (Breaking Benjamin is an example, it was indefinitely protected, in fact). But anyway, like I said, normally we would just list the genres that the band is (since Ben even said it's no departure from what the band has always done), but my worry is that when it does get changed to something else (which it will), on what grounds would we have to remove that if we ourselves don't provide sources for what we're saying? Jacedc (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * When I said "everyday", I was just using an example. If genre changes happen a lot in a short amount time, even if it's not everyday, semi-protection can still be requested. I could see your point on that, but I would just go with it and revert any changes to it without a source or further discussion. If all three of the band's genres were to be added here, I don't see too many further genre changes happening, aside from maybe the occasional removal of one of the three genres, so it's kind of hard to say. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I still think we need a source. If we revert edits on the basis that there are no sources, we can't keep our edits if they don't have sources either. This article is on the song, not the band, afterall. I might agree to using the band's genres if we can get more than just our agreement, but until then I don't really think there's a strong enough consensus to trump WP:VERIFY. Jacedc (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I've now looked for sources again and found this, which tags the song under alternative metal and hard rock. It's probably not the best source for genres, but it's all I could find. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I actually don't know on this one. WP:RS says "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Google Play is promotional in nature, but what it ultimately comes down to is whether or not that has any effect on why (or why not) the categorization of genres is reliable. Google Play isn't a music aggregator, reviewer, tastemaker, critic, etc., and usually those are the people we rely on. But, they are selling music to a specific audience, so I would gather that they'd make sure to categorize the music as correctly as possible. Plus, that source is all we have. Jacedc (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How about we use that reference but also tag it with ? Jacedc (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe if it's to be cited in the prose, but if we had that in the infobox, it would just look like clutter. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. I say we add this as the first line to the &sect; Music section: The song is classified as hard rock and alternative metal.
 * I went ahead and added the genres, but left out the better source needed tag. If you still think it should still be added, feel free to add it. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)