Template talk:Christian music

Australian influence on Christian music?
I would argue that CCM is mostly American in origin. Even the Jesus Music page would say that. Currently, Australia is the second largest influence, but pales in comparison to the US and they don't really deserve a place on the template. Even the Newsboys had to leave Australia to make it big. --Walter Görlitz 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Unblack metal
Should Unblack metal be included in the subgenres? Jerry teps 23:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OR & irrelevant material in the template
Could somebody please give a source for the claims that Christian music: None of this appears to be stated, let alone sourced, in the main article on this topic, so this template appears to be mostly WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * is "A variety of genres evolving from Jesus music."
 * has its "Cultural origins" in "1960s United States"
 * has as its "Typical instruments[,] Electric guitar, Bass guitar, Drums, Keyboard, Synthesizers" (and why this is notably different from modern music more generally)
 * Has had "Continuous" "Mainstream popularity" "from [the] 1990s"

merge to Template:Christian music articles
This template seems to be similar to Template:Christian music articles. Although this template claims to be "Christian music" it only covers a small subset of Christian music, geographically, historically and culturally, so its title is inaccurate. While 'Template:Christian music articles' has a similar flaw, it seems to have (and this template seems to lack) the inherent structure and capability to be expanded, using nested templates, that would address this problem. I suggest that we begin to phase out this template, and develop 'Template:Christian music articles' more fully, migrating articles across to the latter. Feline Hymnic (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked the other music genre templates and they match the format of Template:Christian music articles so we should follow suit and keep that one. However, the name "Template:Christian music" is better than "Template:Christian music articles" (better meaning shorter, more accurate, and conforming to other music genre templates) so we should take "Template:Christian music articles" and move it here after deleting this one. Doesn't seem like we have to merge anything, really, since the other one is more detailed.  ~EdGl (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support EdGl's suggestion, with the provision that, as the current template 'here' is a sidebar, and Template:Christian music articles is a footer, all current Template:Christian music usages would need to be repositioned accordingly. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a great point. Since this template is used only 14 times in article namespace (and just slightly more than 100x total) it shouldn't be that hard (or take too long) to do this.  ~EdGl (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, ultimately a rename, and work on transition in the articles from sidebar to footer. Glad to see that we are agreed. Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge They exist for the same purpose. No preference on the name or format - whatever is fine with me.  Royal broil  22:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(This is consensus enough (unanimous currently) so you can start the merge when ready.)  ~EdGl (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. During the last few days I have tried to ensure that references to the poor template (which had been called the good name "...music") were removed, and that such articles now included links to the good template (which had been called the poorer name "...music articles"). We now have a single template with the (good) footer-based content, the good name "...music" and edit history preserved. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done :) ~EdGl   (talk)  21:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Give the credit to User:NawlinWiki. The actual move needed Wikipedia admin rights (discussion at Administrators' noticeboard). Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)