# Talk:Roar (song)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Roar (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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hitlisten.nu/yearlist2013.asp?list=Download%2050
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gaonchart.co.kr/digital_chart/index.php?nationGbn=E&current_year=2013&chart_Time=year
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: 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I will have to say, the article is in pretty bad shape as a GA. It would require a GAR I believe seeing the amount of dead links, unformatted links, content not being supported by source, major gaps in development etc. —IB [ Poke ] 13:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_pop
Nothing about this song really fits the genre at all  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justdoinsomeedtits (talk • contribs) 06:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 

Your personal analysis is not relevant. What do the sources say? VQuakr (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The two "sources" are pretty clearly misusing the term; it's not like they're academic sources, it's MTV News and "Gigwise.com". Wouldn't the sources on the actual power pop Wiki article be more relevant?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justdoinsomeedtits (talk • contribs) 04:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC) 
Please stop reverting edits that correct an erroneous genre tag. I'm not sure how you expect anyone to source that something isn't a specific genre, but here are a few pretty good rundowns of what power pop actually is, both of which are more valid, informed sources than a tossed-off comment on "Gigwise.com": http://www.allmusic.com/subgenre/power-pop-ma0000002793
http://www.avclub.com/article/a-beginners-guide-to-the-heyday-of-power-pop-1972--86527
I'd appreciate if you left the changes as is in the absence of a valid source justifying a "power pop" tag  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justdoinsomeedtits (talk • contribs) 03:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC) 

As near as I can tell you find the sources inadequate because you don't happen to agree with them. Tough; that's not how we operate. VQuakr (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
...No, I find the sources inadequate because they're pretty clearly incorrect, as demonstrated by the sources I provided (and the sources which are apparently good enough for the power pop wiki page), which, unlike the sources used on the page for this song, actually define the genre and provide its characteristics, none of which fit here. Are the currently existing sources more "adequate" or authoritative because they were added to the page first? If I found some piece of copy calling it a death metal song, would that be a valid source simply because it exists? Not sure what you're trying to argue.
You can take a look at those sources yourself if you want. I'm not sure what else needs to be done here to make the point more clear. What needs to be sourced on this page to make the edit stick - something specifically stating that this particular song isn't a power pop song? Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes; in order for the genre field to have "pop" as opposed to "power pop", you need to find something that specifically states this is a pop song rather than something that calls it a power pop song. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I found two articles: Rolling Stone: "But Katy Perry's single, "Roar," which doesn't yet have a video, one-ups Gaga with an old-fashioned big, catchy and, yes, roaring pop anthem." Time: "Lead single “Roar” is streamlined Kiwi pop" 123.136.106.44 (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
A couple other sources that specifically call it a "pop song" or "pop music" - Huffington Post and VH1 Justdoinsomeedtits (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've gone ahead and implemented Rolling Stone as it has the most expertise in music-related journalism out of those four given for "pop", we only really need one for the main genre itself, and I'm not so sure what "Kiwi pop" is supposed to mean. Something I should note though that MTV is generally deemed a credible source while Gigwise isn't. While looking through the sources given beforehand, I also noticed that none of them mentioned any bits on glam rock for elements, so I removed that but kept in this piece from Slate for the arena rock element as none of the links mentioned here included that. Sorry for previously reverting the removal of glam rock. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Roar (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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006100124/http://www.fimi.it/archivio_certificazioni.php to http://www.fimi.it/archivio_certificazioni.php
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.recordreport.com.ve/publico/?i=poprock
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927123825/http://www.mediaforest.biz/WeeklyCharts/HistoryWeeklyCharts.aspx?year=2013&week=35e to http://www.mediaforest.biz/WeeklyCharts/HistoryWeeklyCharts.aspx?year=2013&week=35e
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102001618/http://www.austriancharts.at/year.asp?id=2013&cat=s to http://www.austriancharts.at/year.asp?id=2013&cat=s
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113005101/http://www.fimi.it/5233 to http://www.fimi.it/5233
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715102748/http://media.wix.com/ugd/ff1e07_13cc06642b654b95979ea5d7fb76d27a.pdf to http://media.wix.com/ugd/ff1e07_13cc06642b654b95979ea5d7fb76d27a.pdf
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) 08:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @SNUGGUMS! I hope you're doing well. I just added more award entries to the Prism article and saw that the "Awards and nominations" section is listed under "Critical Reception." Would it be the same for "Roar"? Also, can we include the listicles under "Critical Reception" as well? I will start copying the entries I gathered from Katy's awards article into her songs and albums' respective articles. Thank you! 143kittypurry (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes I see awards discussed in such sections without subheadings or tables. Other times those features are included under a heading for critical reception. There doesn't seem to be an established preference for which styles to use, assuming one doesn't give awards their own section, but listicles can definitely be added within reception. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:57, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
These are noted. Thanks, and stay safe! 143kittypurry (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS Last question, is the table format I used for Prism okay? 143kittypurry (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
It is, and I have no objections to that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Yey! Thank you 🫶 143kittypurry (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)