Talk:Aura (IV of Spades song)

Section format of "Composition"

@Royiswariii, the format that you keep choosing for the article is not the best for readability. Slapping your good articles in your edit and expecting editors to read them is not the best argument when there could be a genuine problem with the format that could affect the experience of readers, which is a general priority on Wikipedia. That type of format in this article could hinder readability for how it juggles multiple topics in a single paragraph and how that could be very confusing and lengthy, especially as time goes on when more sources detailing the song are published.

I propose that we should go back to the format I created where, like I said in this edit, the two paragraphs in this format have a clear topic (the first being about the track's production, the second being about its content, and the last being critics' opinions on the sound) that makes it easier to read and grasp, therefore providing a more pleasant experience for readers that in turn makes them more able to understand the topics quickly. Gained (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll mention AstrooKai, AdobongPogi since they are active on Philippine Music Task Force to make it balance and their opinions. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Gained (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Was already looking onto this as soon as it popped on my watchlist.

To be honest, I'm not sure what to suggest here, since the formatting of the Composition section is consistent with other GA/FA song articles within the task force (such as "Multo", "Dam", "Karera", and "Gento"). Like those, the first paragraph typically starts with the song's length before proceeding to the production details, while the second paragraph focuses on its musical elements or lyrical content. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

"Gento" has the same structure as that of mine, with the first paragraph being about writing and production credits, while the other is about the music and lyrics. Though the main differences are that the length of the track begins the second paragraph (which is only a preference of mine) and that there is an additional paragraph that is about critics' opinions, which I plan to create its own section. In Roy's case, the two paragraphs are combined, which imo makes it more difficult to read for how it juggles three different topics (credits, music, and i'll add the lyrics for this even tho it's short), therefore making it more difficult to grasp on the topics. Gained (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

If there's something off with the Composition section, I also find that some of the topics feel a bit mixed. I have a suggestion. Maybe we can move the part that says (e.g. "Elijah Pareño from Rolling Stone Philippines wrote that the two's vocals have 'a calm but precise energy, leaning less into flash and more into restraint.") to the Reception section. That part seems more like a critical take on the performance rather than a description of the song's structure or production, so it might make more sense there. I'll go over the rest of the section later and see what else can be improve. AdobongPogi (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I see what you're coming from with that part, though I generally see it more as descriptors for the vocals. Nonetheless, I will be moving it to a new section later. Gained (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Taking a glance at the section again, I just realized how messed up it is. Some of the details should have been placed under Reception. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Could you give examples of what your saying? Gained (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Scratch that, you have fixed them already. AstrooKai (Talk) 23:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)