Talk:Failure (Breaking Benjamin song)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong

Rock music Low‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Genre

In response to Kokoro20's last edit: Then we shall do for this article what we do for "Angels Fall". First of all, the song, nor any other songs, nor the band itself, has ever been described as "hard rock" (and if so not by any significant/meaningful measure worthy of note). As determined on the Breaking Benjamin article (and the discussion on its talk page), "alternative metal" is a subpar classification, despite it frequently being described as such. The only reliable source close to determining the genre of this song (specifically) is its description as "not a significant departure from" and "stylistically true to" the band's signature content, and such signature content is mostly described as alternative rock and post-grunge (again, as proved on the Breaking Benjamin article and Talk:Breaking Benjamin). But, because we don't have any reliable sources for either, we will default to rock (which is the only genre that can be sourced). Oh and one more comment; Just because something has stood for a while, or something is generally agreed on by editors, doesn't make it infallible nor does it mean we should keep it. We could (hypothetically) all agree that The Beatles are hip-hop, but that doesn't make it true. Jacedc (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After looking around on Google, I found two sources for alt-rock, and no sources for post-grunge, alt-metal, or hard rock. I also just did a general search, and the only other genre mentioned was just "rock". The two alt-rock sources, btw, are this one, and this one, but I don't think we should use them because they both say "alt-rock band Breaking Benjamin has released a new song 'Failure'" (or something of that nature), so they're not really explicitly declaring "Failure" alt-rock, they're just inherently declaring it as such. Jacedc (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The FDRM source actually does say "Failure" "is sure to catch the interest of alternative rock fans". For hard rock, I found this, which says "If you’re a fan of the band’s melodic mainstream hard rock, you’ll be happy to hear they’re back. I looked, but haven't found anything for alternative metal or post-grunge either. After all, why would they say that this song should catch the interest of alternative rock fans, if they are not calling the song alternative rock? And the source for hard rock is also implying that the band hasn't changed their sound from hard rock with this song. I know the sources that are found are not the most explicit, but until (or unless) better sources can be found, these should do. So, how about having the infobox say "Alternative rock, hard rock"? Kokoro20 (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Well, I suppose it's the best we can do for now. There are no better options, so sure. Jacedc (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jacedc (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to clarify that I had not noticed that the article at Alternative Nation was tagged under alternative rock and hard rock when I removed it. My bad. Either way though, do we really need to also cite that when the other sources are already cited anyway? Kokoro20 (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not if we're going to move the sources to the prose, because then it boils down to the relevance/importance of the source. If it were in the infobox, I'd like to put as many as we can, but otherwise, I think we only need the more important ones. As it stands is fine. Thanks for your help, btw! Jacedc (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Failure (Breaking Benjamin song). 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) 05:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]