Talk:Dark Before Dawn

Promotional singles

Pinging Kokoro20 and Daerl, "Failure" and "Angels Fall" are promotional singles per WP:PROMOSINGLE. Additionally, a promotional recording is defined as "an audio or video recording distributed for free, usually in order to promote a recording that is or soon will be commercially available. Promos are normally sent directly to broadcasters, such as music radio and television stations, and to tastemakers, such as DJs and music journalists, in advance of the release of commercial editions, in the hope that airplay, reviews, and other forms of exposure will result and stimulate the public's interest in the commercial release." "Failure" and "Angels Fall" both meet these criteria as singles promoting the album. Additionally, "Failure" was sent to broadcasters, played on air, and played by Vevo before becoming available along with the pre-order of Dark Before Dawn, and just because a song charts doesn't preclude it from originally serving as a promotional recording. Jacedc (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Singles are often released before the album is. It doesn't necessarily mean they are always promotional singles. Either way, I say we just label them as singles, since it's hard to define these days what's a retail single and what's a promotional single, and just "single" covers both terms anyway. Kokoro20 (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not all that difficult to define, or to determine what a retail single or a promotional single is. Yes, singles are released all the time before an album is released, but not all fit all or most (or even a few) of the criterion such as those listed at WP:PROMOSINGLE. "Failure" and "Angels Fall" meet quite a few of the more obvious points, such as that they were released for free simply to encourage the pre-ordering of Dark Before Dawn, and they were also disseminated via media outlets (radio stations, Vevo, etc.) before they were made available for retail. I'm not entirely sure about "Angels Fall", but "Failure" was aired exclusively via radio stations before it became available through other means. These definitely qualify as promotional singles. Jacedc (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

If they really were released for free to encourage pre-orders, then fair enough, I guess. Kokoro20 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll change it back. Jacedc (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Failure is definitely a lead single as it is promoted on radio. Angels Fall is an instant grat received when the album is promoted. Promotional singles are usually instant grats and NOT promoted to radio. There is a difference between lead singles and promotional singles. Also, what would you suggest to be the lead single if Failure is a promotional single? There definitely has yo be a lead single which is the one promoted on radio. Sorry that my comment is unsigned because I'm not sure how to sign my comment. Anyway, hope to hear your feedback. Regards, Daerl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daerl (talk • contribs) 02:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Does any of this have sources for it - any sources saying they are "promotional singles". That's really is what is going to trump every argument here. Sergecross73 msg me 05:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

That's true, SergeCross73. None of them do, really. Loudwire called "Failure" a "lead single", but that's about it as far as sources go. Jacedc (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

But if that's the case then none of the currently-listed "promotional singles" have sources, so should we just remove them all despite the fact that we know they are (simply by deducing what we read at WP:PROMO and promotional recording)? Jacedc (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Its hard to say, different editors seem to handle it different ways. Contrary to Daerl's stance, in modern times, the lines between "single" and "promotional single" have really blurred, especially with hard copies of music becoming less relevant/prevalent, and the rock radio format being so dead its pretty easy for promo singles to get airplay. Some argue "promo singles are singles too, so it doesn't matter, just list them all." Other's arguie to discount any promo-singles. My stance is usually just go by whatever sources are saying (which is the Wikipedia mantra anyways.)

1. If you have a source or two calling in a promo single, label it as such.
2. If you have a source or two calling it a normal, standard single, label it as such.
3. If sources are calling it a single, but aren't really designating what sort of single it is, usually its assumed its just a normal single, or they'd say otherwise.

I personally haven't seen PROMOSINGLE be cited all that much, and its just an essay. I could be out of the loop though, as I tend to work on more obscure albums where no one really fights about this sort of stuff... Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Understandable. Well with this considered, I opt for removing the whole section on the discography page and removing "promotional" from both tracks on this page. (Because there are no sources for any of them.) Jacedc (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. It can always be revisited if people find new sources, but this seems like the best course of action for now. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Jacedc (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Angels Fall

"Angels Fall" has now charted at No. 16 on the Billboard Hot Rock Songs chart (source). It has also been the sole subject of (from what I can find thusfar) four media posts: [1], [2], [3], [4]. This is enough to warrant notability in my book (WP:NSONGS), therefore I propose the creation of its own article. I'm preparing one here. Thoughts? (I'll go ahead and ping Serge so you can see this). Jacedc (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, once a song charts on a major chart like that, I no longer oppose a song having its own article. (Technically, the could still be redirected if there's really no coverage on them, but generally there is, if you dig enough.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I had actually thought about creating an article for that song within the last few days, citing some of those same sources you brought up. I just hadn't gotten around to it. For the record, songs do not need to chart to get an article, as long they satisfy other criteria like WP:GNG. WP:NSONGS just lists charting as in indication that a song could be notable. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, but without that charting happening, that sourcing is pretty week. That Revolver source hardly says anything at all. It's literally one sentence about the song, saying the name of it. But the sources, in conjunction with charting, I'm completely fine with. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Serge. The media coverage alone, while fitting the criteria, doesn't really help the article out a whole lot therefore common sense would dictate that it just be redirected. But if you couple it with chart placement then it becomes wholly notable. Jacedc (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done See Angels Fall (Breaking Benjamin song). Jacedc (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

May 9, 2015

I recently made an edit following a string of edits in response to the release of "Defeated", and for whom it may concern I would like to explain my edits. First of all, we don't have a reliable source saying that Burnley is the producer of the entire album, just "Failure". The songs were recorded at different times, so I wouldn't rule out differing producers. Secondly, "Angels Fall" has landed on a major chart so it's not an iTunes single (the interview the editor cited was from last month, so the information gathered from it doesn't apply any more). That said, I think it's safe to assume "Defeated" will follow the same course of action considering the previous two singles had the same release pattern (and it's a common practice among many other bands). Now, I haven't cited the release of "Defeated" to a reliable source because it was just announced via Facebook today, so I haven't been able to find any press releases for it yet. I'm sure some will pop up here within the next couple of days, but for confirmation you can visit their Facebook and YouTube pages. Kind regards, Jacedc (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Evigshed Magazine

This source was recently contested here on the basis of it being an obscure magazine and from a WordPress Blog. If it can't go in the reception section, it should at least be used somewhere to cite alternative metal in the infobox. Also, places like Jesus Freak Hideout cites it as a source. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of this being anything more than an obscure blogger on their own WordPress blog? That link above looks more like JFH just hosted a press release. It doesn't really mean anything if the band's press release/management quotes Evigshed - of course the band's going to grasp on to any source that gives them a good review, they don't care about the reliable source criteria, they care about selling records. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Like what else could I use for proof that it's not just an ordinary blog? For what it's worth, I've also seen Evigshed Magazine being used to pass a GA review. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Things like:

• Does it have an established staff?
• Does it have an established set of editorial policies, with a history of editorial oversight?
• Do the writers have any sort of credentials? Have they written for other reliable sources? Have a college degree in the field? Any sort of professional authority in the field?

If your answers are more along the lines of "No, its a random, self-proclaimed fan who offers his/her personal viewpoint fueled by their passion for the subject" or something like that that these small-time bloggers always say, then we're looking at not being an WP:RS. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Serge. I raised my eyebrow when I saw the Evigshed review was added. Also thanks for pointing out that the sidebar at AllMusic isn't a RS. Didn't know that. Jacedc (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, its best to try to avoid the AllMusic sidebar, just because it uses so many sweeping generalizations across music, kind of like the music sections in retails stores. The kind of stuff like calling Slipknot a pop rock band because they're a rock band and they're also popular - there's a certain degree of truth there, but that's ultimately not typically what the pop rock genre is meant to convey. A lot of those sorts of scenarios seem to pop up and cause problems, so it was decided its best to stay away from. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dark Before Dawn. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620205906/http://www.melodic.net/?page=review&id=89564 to http://www.melodic.net/?page=review&id=89564

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)