Talk:In the End

remixes?

shouldn't this page tell about how many remixes the song has had? I know of at least three. --Nerd42 04:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Piano intro

The piano intro sounds very familair to me. Does someone know anything about it? -- Theo Felds 2252, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Flying Whale - Douglas Adams?

The article mentions uncertainty about the whale:

______ A strange-looking whale can be seen flying around the large statue during most of the video, specifically at the end of the video. The whale in the video was Joe Hahn's idea. He has been quoted as saying "It's not like I pulled it out of my ass; it made sense to me." The reasoning behind its inclusion is still unknown. Many fans of the Legend of Zelda video games have noted similarities between the whale in the video and the 'Wind Fish' character from The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening. However, there is no evidence to support the design of Linkin Park's whale was a tribute to the game, and appears to be coincidental. ______

Did you consider the possibility that this whale should picture the sperm whale in the first novel of Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide To Galaxy"? In the novel this whale suddenly appears in the sky, forming a few thoughts, making up words and dies when reaching the ground. (shortness and uselessness of life at all)

If you agree, could this section be changed?

If you don't completely agree or would like to leave the interpretation uncertain, could at least a line about this possibility be added?

Katja Müller (217.234.177.5 (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

I completly agree, the whale section from "The Hitchhiker's Guide To Galaxy" takes a big resembulance to the video to what the whale may represent, a lot more so then the whale from Zelda. I have added an extra paragraph about this, although it may (or may not) need triming down along with the Zelda paragraph. (Sizedude (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Oh My God....

(NOTE: The Genre had been changed when this note was added, and may change as this discussion progresses)

Ok, When i saw the genre, I flipped. Rap Metal/Modern Rock? Are you bloody kidding me? Modern Rock isn't even a real genre, it's a radio format. Then the "if this is removed without discussion" thing, that really PO'd me dude. This song is a Nu Metal/Rap Rock power ballad, that is very frickin' obvious. If this ain't answered within 72 hours, I WILL change the genre myself, because I am both an experienced editor, and a huge music fan, so I know what I'm doing. Altenhofen 21:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No offence, but obviously you don't. Yes, it may be wrong, but you still need to cite reliable sources to back up your claims, otherwise it can technically just be removed by anyone. Being an "experienced editor, and a huge music fan", I thought you would know this. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is Rap Metal/ Modern Rock cited? For most songs, including this one, you don't really need to source the genre because it is frickin' obvious. Come on, we might as well list Somewhere I Belong, Faint, and Crawling as Rap Metal/Modern Rock. No. Because that is not the proper genre. Plus, no, "technically anyone" cannot remove it, because it does say "If this is removed without discussion on the talk page, it will be considered vandalism." Altenhofen 21:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and then you revert them, and then we have an edit war on our hands. Hate to say it, but an invis tag doesn't give you any power man, I've done it myself in the past, the idiots ignore them. Just find some sources, if it is so obvious then it shouldn't be a problem. The conflicting opinions (as obsurd as they are) require us to cite sources, because well, it is apparently controversial and debatable. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but you are implying that as long as it isn't sourced, it's ok for it to be wrong. That is bull, 'cause Wikipedia is an enyclopedia. meant to be correct; now it seems to me that you think everything needs sourcing, and if it isn't sourced, it is allowed to be incorrect. And this song is like most any song of Hybrid theory or Meteora, so why is it listed as a Radio Format? And not as it's obvious proper genre, Nu Metal? Thats like listing Another brick in the wall as Classic Rock/Progressive Rock. It's incorrect. Altenhofen 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. Find some reliable sources or people will keep changing it. End of story. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was implying something. Anyways, if we need sources for this song, do we need them for Points of Authority, Faint, Numb, Leave Out all the rest, Crawling, Papercut, Lying from You, or any other song of of Hybrid theory, or Meteora that is obviously Nu Metal/Rap Rock (or Rap Metal, or Rapcore)? Altenhofen 23:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This genre should be changed to what I'd like to call "nu-alternative", a genre which combines nu metal with alternative rock. Please avoid editing wars by thinking what's possible for articles. StanMarsh19 (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

2PacNasFan1993: IT IS RAP-ROCK AS WELL

This could also be classed as rap-rock

Don't you agree that this could be classed as rap-rock due to Mike Shinoda rapping over guitar chords which is what mainly makes up rap-rock. I will wait for opionions from others before attempting to change the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holyjoely (talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

lol the Zelda reference? Please somebody erase that.

Please make sure if you claim something, there needs to be a source. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Because if it doesn't have a source, it may just be an opinion. Please don't just say stuff unless it's got a source.

And about the Zelda reference. Fans opinions don't count, lol because fans haven't made their mark in the world for their opinions to "count". Critics are "fans" that have the right to say opinions, and WE should only state what critics should say. Furthermore, you need a source. And not a fan blog. It doesn't matter if fans think the whale looks like it's from Zelda. I'm both a fan of LP and Zelda, I don't think they resemble eachother.. But hey, guess what? My opinion doesn't matter, does it? You need sources. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.103.159 (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Curiosities

This song also appears in the video game Counter Strike Xtreme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.252.140 (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The song appears in the start to play Counter Strike Xtreme. --Mikeas Green Grumicker (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on In the End. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.blender.com/lists/68125/500-greatest-songs-since-you-were-born-451-500.html?p=8

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Official release date

When was In the End officially released? During the Santana High shooting, which occurred in March 2001, the shooter quoted the song. The RIAA says it's October 24, the same date as the album, while other sources claim autumn of the next year.2605:6000:1526:450B:2865:3055:4BC3:17AD (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Considering that "In the End" peaked on March 29, 2002 after 22 weeks (i.e., assuming it never left the chart, it entered in late October), and that at the time is was mandatory to be an official single in order to chart I'd leave it as it is. Considering that itHybrid Theory had already sold 2M copies by the end of 2001, it wouldn't be considered an unknown song by the general public when the the Santana High shooting happened. Also, the source I just added (Billboard, Oct 6, 2001) says "the current single 'In the End'". Unless we get an specific date, it can be left as either "2001" or "Late 2001" to be specific. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I would like to get some solidarity on this. The source for August 23, 2001 is confusing as it doesn't say anything about the release date of the single. It only says it entered the charts on December 2 of the same year as they use DD/MM. Though, this can't be the case if the supposed commercial release for the single was August 23. Though, the Offical Charts in the UK has "In The End" first charting on October 20th 2001 https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/9854/linkin-park/ (Click the plus button next to In The End). This is completely different to when it first charted in Australia. This would also prove that In The End first charted in the US in late October to be correct. Would this not suggest that the single was indeed released in October 2001 instead of 2000?--Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

October 9, 2001

I've found several sources that back a October 9th 2001 release date for the single. They back each one up. If anyone wants to check for themselves before I update the article in the infobox, then pleae feel free. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] --Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"Pop"

This shouldn't be in the infobox. "Pop" is an extremely vague term. It doesn't even always refer to the genre, but rather "popular music". If you looked hard enough, I'm sure many of their songs are called "pop" in reliable sources, since it's a catch-all term, much like "rock." It doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be included in the infobox. See WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:EXTRAORDINARY. MoonJet (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

While you are correct that pop is short for popular music, though "popular music" also has a lot of characteristics and sounds in those types of songs that are very similar to each other. The lead for the pop music article states "Identifying factors usually include repeated choruses and hooks, short to medium-length songs written in a basic format (often the verse-chorus structure), and rhythms or tempos that can be easily danced to. Much pop music also borrows elements from other styles such as rock, urban, dance, Latin, and country." I don't know about you.. but that describes LP's biggest hit very well. "In The End" has repeated choruses and hooks, follows the same structure as lots of other pop songs and borrows elements from rock music. I think we can firmly use that article and the Billboard source [6] which explicitly calls it a pop song. "And they were able to take a fundamentally top 40-unfriendly genre one spot from Hot 100 immortality for a simple reason: “In the End” was one of the best pop songs of the 21st century." Billboard is well established as a very credible and reliable source for the industry in terms of charting positions and articles made by music journalists who know what they are talking about. I said in my original inclusion that I knew it would be an unpopular inclusion and some people would dislike that, it's been removed loads of times by IP's with users reverting them. Your opinion here could also very well be interpreted as WP:Genre Warrior by site administrators. Also it's worth noting, if something is reliably sourced, it should not be removed at all. If you want to challenge something's notability, then you should start a discussion to remove something rather than doing it straight up. I would ask you to please not to remove pop as a genre again, it is reliably sourced by one of the biggest music outlets on the planet and absolutely should not be removed just because you feel it's not appropriate to describe the song. Thank you. --Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

But you haven't acknowledged the subpolicies MoonJet provided, which are perfect descriptions of what's going on here. In particular, the extraordinary claim rule says there should be multiple sources of exceptional quality, which isn't here at the moment. It doesn't just borrow elements from rock music, it's rock music taken a step further, as evidenced by multiple subgenres of rock present and nu metal being the predominant opinion. The following part, "a fundamentally top 40-unfriendly genre..." gives away that the source is talking about pop not in the context of pop music, but as a commercially successful radio hit. Not everything that rises to the top of the Billboard 200 is pop...well, at least that's what it was like back then. dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I am personally strongly against the removal of a genre if it is reliably sourced. Billboard (One of the biggest music outlets in the world, who publish charting positions as well as reporting on mainstream music news) called "In the End" a pop song regardless of context. They didn't call it a pop inspired hit or a rock song with pop elements, they explicitly called it a pop song by saying "In the End was one of the best pop songs of the 21st century." They absolutely could have said it was one of the best popular songs of the 21st century but they didn't.. So, the way I see it. It can't get any more clear to what they are talking about. Heck, even the band's members acknowledge "In The End" as their poppiest song. Mike Shinoda on React "You go immediately from him going 'not that pop shit' and then the very next thing is like our poppiest song." Chester Bennington, the band's lead singer even called "In The End" a "pure pop song." in a Kerrang interview shared by the LP association forums A lot of pop songs back in the late 90's and early 2000s had a heavy use of guitars during that timeframe. The song also follows the standard 4 chord progression which is used in a lot of pop songs as well as the common pop sturcture. The subpolicies that MoonJet applied to this instance are practically irrelevant to the subject at hand and that's why I didn't acknowledge it. (The extrodinary rule also states that something that is heavily disagreed for the rule to apply and this isn't heavily disagreed with.) From what I understand and gather, they wanted to boldly remove it because they disagreed with the thought of pop acknowledged in Linkin Park's early work. What I find irritating and hypocritical is that when a bunch of IP's spam the removal on pop on this page, they will get reverted and pop is put back in by other respected editors on the site (who don't remove genres based on their opinion). Though when an editor on the site who has a user page who removes it, they will get supported. They could have challenged it and the notability, I'm fine with that. He should have gone to the talk page and started a discussion to remove pop as a genre, though he jumped the gun and just removed it anyway and that's what I take issue with. --Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't cite band members for genre interpretation, per WP:PRIMARY. Since genres are often subjective classifications, third-party sources need to be cited.

Let's be real now, pop as a genre usually refers to the likes of Michael Jackson, Britney Spears and Katy Perry. Linkin Park has never been anything like that, except on One More Light. Keep in mind that alternative rock and nu metal (which are both in the infobox here) already includes pop music among their various influences.

By the way, WP:GWAR also states that just because a certain genre is cited, doesn't mean it should be in the infobox. See Wikipedia:Genre warrior#Red flags. You yourself have admitted that "pop" would be a controversial addition, and something this controversial needs not just one, but multiple very high-quality sources citing it, per WP:EXTRAORDINARY. And since you now have two long-term editors challenging your addition of "pop" backed up by policy/guideline-based reasons, "pop" should not be re-added unless a consensus dictates its re-addition.

Also, removing content without talk page discussion is acceptable, per WP:BOLD. And I actually did post on the talk page here prior to removal to give my reasons. MoonJet (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rockmusicfanatic20:, you are getting into edit war territory now. Two editors voiced their oppositions for "pop" (and one thanked me for my removal of it, making it three editors). See WP:CONSENSUS. You yourself admitted that the addition of "pop" would be controversial, so why get so flustered over adding a genre that so controversial, and have sources that might not even refer to it as "pop" as genre, but rather short for "popular music"? Besides, any pop elements the song has are already noted by nu metal, rap rock and alternative rock.

By the way, to address the other question in your edit summary, I don't necessarily agree that "Given Up" is "heavy metal," per say, just that its some kind of metal. IMO, alternative metal or groove metal would fit better for the song, but I couldn't find any sources for those, but I did find one for heavy metal (which alternative metal and groove metal are subgenres of). MoonJet (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I do find it considerably amusing when you think I'm the one engaging in an edit war when you were the one to start the whole ordeal and consistently reverted my edits when I specifically asked you not to and continued to do so anyway by citing irrelevant guidelines like WP:Extraordinary with removing genres reliably sourced in the first place.

As for a consensus? Every argument I've been in here which needs to reach WP:Consensus means that this topic clearly did NOT meet a consensus if (using a talk page of my own experience as an example otherwise I wouldn't use it) Talk:Shane McMahon regarding McMahon's status with WWE is to go by where even after two months.. no consensus has been made. User NJZombie (a user of 15+ years of editing experience and an administrator for several) says "Consensus is not a simple wait and see if someone agrees with you and then change it as soon as they do situation. It's also not necessarily based on a majority vote" which throws your argument about one or two editors thanking you for removing cited sourced genres. I was hasty in that situation and removed information which I felt was untrue once someone agreed with me and that's the same for yourself and is almost perfectly mirrored in this situation. This also means that the information should not have been removed at all until a consensus was made, and in this case you should not have removed pop but rather brought it up as a discussion in here first before removing anything.

A big talking point for you in your removal is that I admit that the inclusion would be controversial. It is controversial, but if you look at my initial inclusion on 4th January 2021 I say "I know people here aren't going to like this, but it is sourced. A reliable one from Billboard themselves. New genre added." I say this referring to the baseless IP's consistently reverting other genres which were already sourced in the article and me being self aware enough to know that IP's looking at this would try and remove it. Before you came along, loads of IP's were removing pop as a genre when it is reliably sourced because they don't like it and disagree with it is called a Genre Warrior and per WP:Genre Warrior is against Wikipedia guidelines. I would like you to pay attention to experienced editors who revert their removals of pop as a genre. The first instance of this happening is on 7th January 2021 and Tbhotch is the one to revert the IP as well as in other instances. 17th January 2021, 20th January 2021, 5th May 2021, 16th July 2021. DannyMusicEditor on 13th July 2021, Throast on 30th November 2021, MattSucci on 19th December 2021, TL The Legend on 4th January 2022, Cannolis on 19th February 2022 and Rusty4321 on 27th February 2022 before you removed pop as a genre which is reliably sourced. If any of them took issue with pop being included then I'm sure that discussion would have already been made before you removed it but they didn't, meaning they had no issue with "pop" being reliably sourced and included in the infobox.

"Pop" is also not as controversial for "In the End" as you make it out to be. Some people will disagree and some people will agree with it, I did not cite Chester Bennington([7] and Mike Shinoda's([8] comments to use it as a reference in the article but used it as an example to strengthen my argument which some of your previous comments imply that I was going to do so. There's even a whole thread on Reddit debating whether people think that "In the End" is a pop song.[9] Some people think it is, other's not so much. It's also note to mention that during the Hybrid Theory era, Linkin Park were criticised by critics as being a "nu metal boy band." Boybands are also very well established in the pop genre meaning critics felt Linkin Park were a manufactured pop group masquerading as nu metal.Guardian Citing WP:Bold as a reason to remove a reliably sourced genre is a DANGEROUS precident to set on Wikipedia as it encourages other users to remove genres they disagree that goes against their narrative of how the song sounds as they feel it makes themselves look "more clever" with removing genres. Let's be real here, you saw "In the End" cited by Billboard as pop music and was like: "This doesn't sit right with me that this is being included, I disagree with this being here but how do I go about removing this and making it look like an intelligent edit that isn't instantly opposed." Your whole attitude to me has screamed Genre Warrior and naturally as the person who found the Billboard article to include as a citation in the article, I strongly oppose this attitude and I find it to be extremely hypocritical and how it's okay for experienced Wikipedia editors to remove things they disagree with. It's an insane double standard and I'm flabbergasted how this hasn't been opposed more. Let's face it, if you were a random IP or a user with no userpage then everyone would be reverting your removal any chance they would get. Use your addition of heavy metal at "Given Up", if I reverted that source because I disagreed with it citing WP:Bold you would absolutely revert my removal because it's reliably sourced and it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with what you added.

Look at "Good 4 U" by Olivia Rodrigo for example. Grunge is cited as a genre. Grunge? That doesn't sound like grunge in the slightest, but it's reliably sourced and experienced editors there aren't removing grunge as a genre cited for the sound of the song. I guarantee a lot of editors would prefer not to include it as they disagree with it, but they don't make a fuss about it BECAUSE it's reliably sourced. We should be the same here with "In the End" and pop. You may disagree with it with some other users, but that still doesn't give you the right to remove it when it's reliably sourced.

I will give you the case at "One Step Closer" for removing pop as a cited genre as a random professional reviewer at AllMusic doesn't hold a candle of credibility compared to the biggest music outlet in the world such as Billboard but when you start to discredit Billboard sources, I will strongly oppose this. Thank you for listening to me and I hope to not have any other issues arise from this in future. Thank you. --Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Look, it's not about me disagreeing that the song is pop. Now, I don't think it's pop, like I said, but that's not the point. "Pop" is thrown around at just about everything that has the slightest bit of melody. Like I said, it's often referred to as an acronym for "popular music" than an actual genre. This is why we usually don't list pop in infoboxes and go with subgenres instead.

As for your "Given Up" example, I don't think the song is plain punk rock in the slightest either, but notice how I didn't remove the genre there as its cited to a reliable source.

Billboard is a high-quality source, there's no denying that. But WP:EXTRAORDINARY requires multiple high-quality sources. "Pop" is an extraordinary claim, for the reasons I've mentioned above.

How about this?: I can start an RFC here, and ask whether pop should stay in the infobox or not. When there's disputes like this, we can seek consensus from outside parties to resolve the situation. MoonJet (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Also against the inclusion of pop. It's common practice to remove vague genre when you've got plenty of other reliably sourced specific genre that are generally more helpful to the reader. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RFC

Let's try and settle this issue. I have started an RFC here. There's a disagreement going on whether "pop" should be listed in the infobox. So instead of participating in that, I have decided to open up an RFC here. Here are the options:

• Support the removal of pop
• Oppose the removal of pop

Choose between one of the two options with your rationale in the poll below. MoonJet (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Poll

• Support the removal of pop: Per all my arguments above. "Pop" is applied to just about everything will the slightest bit of melody. It doesn't mean it needs to be included in the infobox. Also, as mentioned, any pop elements the song has are already implied by nu metal, rap rock and alternative rock. We generally don't list pop in infoboxes if subgenres or related genres are already listed. Not to mention, "pop" is often used as an acronym for "popular music," rather than as a genre. MoonJet (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal. There's no shortage of more frequently cited, more specific genre, and "pop" isn't particularly helpful in the case of such a genre-bending song. Sergecross73 msg me 21:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• Faulty RfC. Read WP:RFC. This does not come close to neutrally presenting a question; it's a polemic against another editor.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

  @SMcCandlish: This is not intended as a personal attack at all. I'm just trying to gather a consensus, because a certain editor insists on the addition of something, no matter how many times he is reverted. MoonJet (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

  @MoonJet: You specifically singled me out when starting this RFC. You cannot pretend that this RFC was made in neutrality over the use of pop. It bothers me how you've gone through a lot of trouble over something as simple of something which is reliably sourced to its claim, which with my own examples provided that showcase that it isn't as extraordinary as you claim it to be. You made it in hopes of removing something that you personally hated being included. If it was really that big of an issue, someone would have brought it up before yourself but they didn't. This at the moment feels like an attempt of mob mentality against me, you always say "two against you, three against you." That to me feels like trying to engage in a mob mentality.

  What if I started an RFC on this topic instead in the tone that you used, you would feel like I would be trying to engage people to gang up on you. It's not fair and in my opinion, completely unjustified and uncalled for. The start of this RFC was not made in neutrality on this topic. I also just can't believe you would say I'm the one edit warring over this when I specifically asked you to stop keep reverting my edits. You still did so in spite of this. You engaged in the edit warring mentality and started this whole ordeal. I never wanted any of that. The tone, the tone alone in the lead for the RFC, it portrays me in a negative light because you didn't like that I had stood my ground on this matter. It may not be intended as a personal attack against me but it sure fucking feels like it. If you even approached this differently such as: "I personally disagree with pop being used in the infobox, other users however feel it should be included. I was also very curious to see what everyone else thinks. Starting an RFC to see what people make of this." I would respect that a lot more, but at the moment this was made in spite of my own feelings and thoughts on this topic and I absolutely cannot respect that. My opinion is not invalid, so please stop trying to make it out that it is. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Since you feel that way, I have altered the RFC headline post. I am not trying to cause trouble here. If there's any editors that disagrees with how article content is presented, they have every right to challenge it. That's what I did. Since you challenged me back, that's why I opened this RFC. Also, keep in mind that just because something is cited to a reputable source, it doesn't guarantee its inclusion. There's other factors to consider. MoonJet (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal: "Pop" is the vaguest term in music I can think of. The source attributed to the genre is probably calling it "pop" only because it became a commercial hit on pop charts. This is lazy nomenclature. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal per ResPM and MoonJet. Couldn't have said it better myself. dannymusiceditor ^oops 00:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal - FlightTime (open channel) 00:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal — Everything has already been said. SlamDunk1997 20:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the removal of pop I don't think it matters whether or not we approve of the genre "pop" or whether we feel it is vague (WP:OR). It is a genre of music, and it is a music genre supported by WP:List of Genres. So that's that. What really matters is whether or not it is cited by reliable sources, and it appears to be. That being said, I looked at several other songs' pages that I would personally put in the same category and none of them listed "pop" as a genre. "Pop rock", yes. But not "pop". I don't understand the WP reasoning, however, for removing an edit to add "pop" despite the current "feeling" that it doesn't belong.Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose the removal of pop: Whether the term itself is considered vague or not, pop is still known as a genre of music. We still see a lot of pop singer's song articles use "pop" in their infoboxes as well as other subgenres of music. Pop is absolutely known as an acronym for "popular music", but it is also attributed to a specific sound also. Why on earth would we associate pop with a specific sound if we didn't have something for that? There are loads of heavy metal bands that have melodic songs that aren't considered pop by being a bit more melodic to be more radio-friendly doesn't exactly mean it's pop music. Linkin Park however are a band that have flirted with pop music since their debut album and this song is attributed to the many chord structures, patterns and sounds attained by a lot of pop music that was around at the time. Another example being "Heavy", the song which everyone called "pop" and a "sell out" and every source provided was talking about it. There are still however other subgenres attached in the infobox to sources alongside it. I don't see this being any different, this is sourced to a reputable source of very high quality in Billboard which explicitly states "In the End" is a pop song regardless of context. If simply "rock" can be sourced without a direct subgenre, then why can't pop? Why can other song articles (by the same band no less) exactly source "pop" but this article can't because there are also some rock influences that other sources state? Is it because it goes against a narrative of that? At that point, it feels like people will just remove things which go against their perceived narrative of what genres should be present in an article and that is absolutely WP:GWARRIOR. If we have to remove "pop" here which is directly sourced to a highly regarded pinnacle of a charting company, then we should start doing so with other articles as well which have sources that call that specific song "pop". This, in my opinion, would change the precident and is dangerous to Wikipedia. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly support the removal of pop: The term "pop" is much too vague. This poll has been going on for a month now. It seems that we have a consensus. Antique Rose 20:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.