User talk:Solidest/Archives/2022/July

One more thing I would like to discuss about Infobox music genre
..that is unrelated to derivatives/subgenres/whatelse discussion. Would you support or not renaming vague "Cultural origins" to explicit "Place of origin"? 178.121.41.135 (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * We need to be guided by wikidata, since someday these fields will be imported from there as other wikipedias already do, so I would support splitting into:
 * Date of origin :
 * Place of origin : / . Solidest (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good idea 178.121.41.135 (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought about this a bit more and found objection to it. How to deal with resurgent genres while having separate fields? Some genres have "waves" of popularity and that is reflected in their infoboxes. I just can't remember where I've seen it recently, but there're multiple examples. I mean, say, some genre had 2 waves, first one in the 1990s in location A, and second one in the 200s in location B. When the fields are separated, the connection of 1990s to A is lost, for example. And (I may be wrong) P571 seemingly allows for only one date. 178.121.41.135 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * On wikidata, this can be handled with qualifiers or individual new items for every revival or wave. On wikipedia it is more problematic. We can do a second infobox if this is a separate revival. Or just specify 2 times 1st wave + 2nd wave in both fields. Solidest (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably two infoboxes is the right solution, because when a subsequent wave has reliable sources to back up its notability, then it would probably be correct (and simple too) to add a separate section/sub-section to article to describe it, and that sub-section can have its own infobox. 178.121.23.248 (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

A Talk About R&B
When you took off Post-Disco from the R&B template, you left Soul music in. I assume you meant you approved it being there, but another user has recently reverted it. Is it okay if I put it back? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the reason "unsupported" seems strange and unclear. I think it's right to put subgroups of contemporary rnb, soul, funk, and other direct subgenres in the template. But I don't like that there were both genres and subgenres in the table. As these are equal. I'd rather leave it the way I edited it + added funk column. unless the reason for that removal was the presence of separate templates for soul (for cont rnb it seems there is no such thing). Solidest (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is funk a subgenre of R&B? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently it is listed in categories in which is under . But the articles themselves describe relation between funk and soul close to the same as with soul and rnb - something in between a sub-genre and a derivative. So it would be more appropriate to say that funk is a subgenre of R&B and derived from soul, rather than it's subgenre of soul. Solidest (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)