Talk:(Don't Go Back To) Rockville

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

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 articles

Maryland Low‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland 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.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on (Don't Go Back To) Rockville. 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/20120205195817/http://www.remhq.com/albums.php to http://remhq.com/albums.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hermenaut.com/a135.shtml

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: 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) 19:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-war[edit]

@Seasider53:, why are you removing the sourced genre Category:Alternative country songs that User:IMMAEDITTHISPAGE has added? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because one journalistic opinion does not fact make? Seasider53 (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you are contradicting WP:V. When we have a reliable source that states "x", then we follow what those sources say. If we have a reliable source stating that the song has a certain genre, then it really doesn't make sense to keep it in the body of the article, but remove a category. How is that better? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you’re saying we should remove it from the body of the article and from the categories. I’m OK with that suggestion. Seasider53 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or have both. Is the source for the genre reliable? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t appear to be. Plus, if the journalist says that Shiny Happy People is death metal, should we include that reference in the relevant article too? Seasider53 (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paste is reliable: Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. The instance where what a bulk of sources would call bubblegum pop and one source would say is death metal is an issue of WP:UNDUE or fringe opinions. Have you seen these guidelines? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, is one journalist's opinion permissible for inclusion as a blanket statement? You seem to be confused about the source of the reference itself. And what bulk of sources are you talking about here? Seasider53 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You answered my question with questions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification required, hence the question marks. I don't know how to ask questions without including them. Seasider53 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can include a critic's opinion on a song's genre as information in the article. I don't know what you mean by a "blanket statement". Nor do I know what you think I'm confused about: Paste is clearly a reliable source and I provided you reasoning why. As for a "bulk of sources", I'm responding to the hypothetical you posed: you wrote, "Well, what if Person A says something wacky, then do we include that in an article?" and I expounded on that example. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements of opinion would disagree. As stated there, it would be one thing if the prose stated "Clueless Writer, of Reliable Source, believes the song is in the alt.country genre." But nope, let's have it ingrained into a fact-based website because it was written on the Paste website during someone's lunch hour. Seasider53 (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The inherent nature of music genres is that they are arbitrary opinions. Is there some kind of objective measure of music genres? Also, you still have not answered my questions. Have you see WP:EDITWAR? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A-and we're into the obligatory ramblings portion of proceedings, instead of admitting defeat. Have you see WP:EDITWAR? What does that mean? Seasider53 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defeat about what? "Have you seen WP:EDITWAR?" means "have you seen WP:EDITWAR"? You're edit-warring and it's not clear to me if you know that you're not supposed to. Again: you are not actually answering my questions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're being needlessly belligerent here. What does that mean? What it means is – you're edit warring. The impression I'm getting is that you personally disagree with the conclusion of the source so you think it should be disregarded. — Czello ^(music) 17:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]