Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 10

Infobox debate 2: Infobox genre field guidelines proposal by WesleyDodds
Ok, here are my guideline proposals that can be used if we ultimately decide to keep the genre field. Before I begin I want everyone to understand some important things. Removing the genre field from infoboxes will not end genre debates as a whole; only those in the infobox. We still use genre categories for band, albums, and songs, and music styles will still need to be discussed in articles. The applications of genres in an infobox may or may not be subjective, but genres in general are not subjective. Name a genre, and I'll do my best to dig up a decent book for you about it. Finally, infobox guidelines already stated that editors should list the most general genre possible; it's just that this has rarely been followed by the majority of editors, including myself (there's some good reasons for this, which I will elaborate on further down). Anyway, here are my proposed suggestions:


 * Put a cap on the number of genres allowed
 * We don't want to get the infobox to get cramped, and often people will try to thrown in a random genre just because an artist dabbled in it for a song or two (I'm reminded of when reggae used to be in The Rolling Stones infobox). There shouldn't be twelve genres in an infobox. I suggest a cap of four genres in a band/musician infobox, and a cap of one in songs and albums. That way editors can be specific (Post-rock on Mogwai (band), or Gangsta rap and G-funk for Dr. Dre, for instance) or broad (Rock music and R&B on Prince (musician)) according to the needs of the article. Speaking of which, remove the guideline that says to try and be general. Sometimes specificity is more helpful; both generality and specificity should be options for editors. In rare cases there will be a legitimate reason to list more than these suggested amount of genres, but that's why these are guidelines, and according to Wikipedia policy if there's a good reason to not adhere to a guideline, then go ahead and do it. Of course, talk it out on that article's talk page first.


 * Ban the addition of citations to the genre field in the infobox
 * This has always annoyed the hell out of me. It cramps the infobox, and since the box is supposed to be a summary of the article, the genres should be verified by the article's contents anyways. Also, editors have a tendency to put four or five citations for a single genre in the infobox. If the genre is in dispute, it should be discussed and settled in the talk page, with references placed in the body of the article. Also, you can put invisible text in the infobox to indicate what the consensus is, which has worked for the longest time with The Smashing Pumpkins, a Featured Article I wrote.


 * Ban linking to the "music style" or similiar sort of section from the infobox, and phrases like "Disputed subgenres"
 * There's three problems with this: first, it's redundant to table of contents; second, it's essentially using Wikipedia as a self-reference, which is a big no-no; third, it essentially creates a POV fork. I've seen a few infoboxes on pages with genre disputes where editors have linked to the Musical Style section with the words "Disputed subgenres". Well, they may be, but this doesn't help me as a reader. What does "disputed subgenres" sound like? It isn't informative and it draws attention on the problem without solving it. This is one guideline I particularly feel needs to be set down.


 * When in doubt, keep it general
 * Most of the genre debates I've seen revolve around subgenres of a particular genre. My Chemical Romance springs to mind. During these sorts of debates, my general line of thinking is usually, "Why not just put 'Rock' in the infobox?" Broad genres possibly cover all debated subgenres, and they would still be correct. So if you're arguing between nu metal and alternative metal? Just put heavy metal music in the infobox. Heavy metal music or hard rock? Just put rock music in the infobox. Rock music, or funk or blues or folk music? Well, if all else fails, you can use the option provided by the next section . ..


 * If necessary, remove the genre field from the infobox
 * This mainly applies to solo artists or composers who have worked in various genres over their careers, and to various artists compilations. If you can't effectively summarize the musical style in the infobox, don't bother; just remove the field. Deal with it in the prose, where you have all the space you need. Keep in mind this option shouldn't be used as a tool for dispute resolution; it is mainly intended for occasions when a brief summary is inadequate. This sort of action definitely would need to be discussed at length on musician pages, but it should be mandatory for various artist compilations that feature more than one overreaching genre (ie. rock, blues, jazz, country, R&B, pop, hip hop, various forms of native folk music, etc.)


 * NOTE: Novelist and poet infoboxes list genres and movements they are associated with. Just thought I'd add that. I honestly think what we need are solid guidelines and enforcement of those guidelines, rather than removing a field that suits infoboxes made for artists and their work.
 * Painting, Film, and Actor infoboxes, however, don't (and IMO is why they tend to be more stable in articles). Similar infoboxes don't have to have the same fields necessarily. There are examples on boths sides of the fence, and even straddling the fence, if you really start looking at the many infoboxes on WP. I think we need evaluate this situation in the context of WP:MUSIC and determine if it's more of a benefit or a burden, and whether genre is the type of knowledge that is well-suited to an infobox presentation or not. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I might think of a few more things, but there's the start of it. Thoughts? WesleyDodds (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Comments. Just to clarify, you're saying remove the genre field from the infobox in the individual page, right? Oran e   (talk)  02:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Ideas # 1 through #4 have all been experimented with in some form or another and all have failed. "Keep it general"??? The guideline for the box has always been 'aim for generality' and we have all seen how well that worked. Idea number 5 has worked admirably though for over 24 hours. I have 6000 pages on my watchlist. Today has been a quiet day. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * None of these have been previously established guidelines, and if implemented, we should post them on the talk pages of all music-related WikiProjects, from this one down to the band-focused projects. Also, not everyone follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style from the get-go, but once it's pointed out to them they generally catch up and stick to it from then on out. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for others to comment. I don't care how it's done. I just want the genre field back. And to Libs. You seem to conclude that you speak for every one else. Not everyone see the genre debate as severe. It certainly wasn't for the articles I edit. Again, why should I pay for this? If your watch list is quiet, then fine. Good for you. But you are not god of the articles you watch. You don't get to control them, and no one is forcing you to oversee debates, so I don't know why you treat it as a personal inconvenience. That's what other editors, admins and mediators are for. Oran e   (talk)  02:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Journalist", you've never seen a real genre edit war? Is everything hunky dory in your world then? For those of us who have been working on music articles for years, we've seen hundreds of genre battles where editors square off each trying to justify their own POV. Surely you, with your detonational username, should realise that we can't have POV on Wikipedia? You want it back, why? What would be your persuasive argument? You've never seen an edit war over genres on articles you've worked on? "Again, why should I pay for this?" - Why should we all pay for this? Removing the genre box saves a huge amount of time when having to deal with people changing them to fit their POV all the time. That's why. If you want to write about genres, use the prose! Thanks for listening, "Journalist". Utan Vax (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Point duly noted. You have yet to explain the strategy of reducing edit conflicts, and removing the field is not a means to that end. If I'm a genre enthusiast, then believe me, I would find it in the body of the article, and thus, the problem ensues. Deleting something to deal with a problem doesn't stop the problem. I realize that we don't tolerate POV on Wikipedia, so tell the edit warriors to source their info. Get serious. Get mean. Protect the article, give them a timne out. Isn't that what we've all been doing? If we find an article that is largely unsourced, what do we do, delete the article, or put "citiation needed"? And no, thank you for listening! Oran e   (talk)  19:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with all of these, more or less (especially #2...I hate that practice too). But Libs is right on one thing; several of them have been tried before with little to no success. Specifically #s 2, 3, and 4 have all failed in articles where I've tried to help settle genre disputes. Prime examples are The Used and Iron Maiden. Check the talk pages of both and you'll see what I mean (for some real fun, click "edit this page" on The Used and see the dramatic lengths they've had to take to end POV disputes). The problem with removing the field in an individual article is that it can simply be reverted or re-added, and surely will if editors notice that some articles have the field and some don't. When I refer to genre as "subjective", I mean that it is knowledge, rather than data, not that it is subjective based on the opinions of Wikipedia editors. In the context of this infobox, saying "Mick Jagger was born July 26, 1943 in Dartford" or "Beggars Banquet is 39 minutes and 47 seconds long" is objective data. Saying "The Used play screamo" is subjective knowledge. This is true even when all of these statements are sourced, because in the latter case the source represents a subjective interpretation on the part of the author. If challenged, the first 2 examples can be answered very simply as either true or false, and nearly all sources will give the same answer. The third example, however, will vary depending on the source consulted. This is why different sources often give different genres for the same artist or album; the sources are written by critics or other authors who are giving their interpretation based on their own experience and knowledge. Obviously these are still reliable sources, and perfectly appropriate to the article's body paragraphs, but I strongly feel that this type of knowledge cannot be well-presented in the infobox, because subjective knowledge requires context and attribution to its source. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This applies to any information on wikipedia. To suggest that we remove information that is sourced by an author or journalist is a dangerous precident. Everything is an opinion and may i remind you that wikipedia does not claim to be the 'truth' but verifiable facts (as specified in Verifiability) and with that in mind the infobox is not a the 'truth' either, the genre field merely represents genres that an artist is known for as sourced in reliable sources. To think of it as the truth is incorrect and where the mistake is being made not the field itself. Birth dates are not necessarily objective data, there are and have been disputes over different dates appearing in different sources. Should we remove that field because of it? Of course not, we deal with the disputes with dispute resolution just like the countless number of disputes ongoing throughout wikipedia. -- neon white talk 09:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem there is, again, the difference between data and knowledge. A birth date is data. A person was born on a specific date. Yes, there can be discrepancies between sources as to what that exact date was, but since it is physically impossible for a person to have been born twice on 2 different dates, then logical deduction tells us that one or some of the sources is incorrect. We as editors may not be able to determine, from the conflicing sources, which date is correct, but that does not mean that no objective, factual birthdate exists. It does exist, we are simply unable to determine it from available sources. Genre, however, is knowledge, subject to differing interpretations by different sources and entirely dependent on those sources. We cannot say "fact: this artist is in this genre". We can say "fact: this source says that this artist in this genre". We have to have that context present, otherwise we are misrepresenting the source. The infobox is incapable of providing said context. The format of an infobox is, in my opinion, only suitable for providing raw data. For more complex knowledge that requires contextuatlization, such as genre, prose is far, far superior. I completely advocate well-sourced discussion of genre, but only in prose form within the article body. A lot of participants in this coversation seem to misinterpret that since genre is removed from the infobox, it is removed from the article altogether. That is completely false. If anything, discussion of genre is far better served by being restricted to the prose sections. I think that is the crux of my argument. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the infobox genre field has not been a problem for me like it has been other editors. And yes, there are occasions where the guidelines I have suggested have worked. While we can argue the merits of having the field in the infobox, removing the field to avoid genre debates doesn't address the problems. Ultimately guidelines are tools to help editors, but it's up to the editors to solve problems; infobox guidelines and removing infobox fields won't do it automatically. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * IllaZilla, I really believe that you're just creating mountain out of a mole hill. Just list the different genres in the genre filed (it does say "genre(s)", doesn't it?). At the end of the day, it all comes down to one point. Don't tell me what to edit, or what information to display. That's your subjective (controversial) opinion. We shouldn't have to be forced to follow it in all articles. If this was any kind of a real and fair discussion, the infobox would have already been reverted in light of this new opposition to it. We shouldn't have to work to persuade you guys to return the field. It should have already been returned to the way it was, and then we work to see if it changes or not. That's how the process has always worked. You guys did it with me. What makes this one any different? Oran e   (talk)  04:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * These guidelines are sensible. They would clean up some of the boxes. However, if the field is to return I don't think they are necessary. If the field returns, (to me) none of these proposals make the field substantially more desireable, or workable. The proposal to retain removal of the field for individual articles is an interesting one, but it is only a speculative solution to the current debate because we have not focussed on any one specific article as a problem. In effect it is a possible solution to a bridge that hasn't been crossed. The debate of whether, or not to have a genre field appears to be mostly over (1) whether the field is encyclopedic and also (2) whether, or not edit warring is viable reason to remove the field. There is a difference of opinion on both of these matters. - Steve3849 talk 05:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of a debate about whether or not the fields were encyclopedic. They clearly are, and should be sourced. But to answer your question #2, no, it's not a viable reason to decide for us that the field is to be removed from every article on Wikipedia. I like WD's suggestion. Oran e   (talk)  05:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a debate, clearly. - Steve3849 talk 05:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you ask me, we should only list the most general genre if the band has covered too many subgenres to be listed. For example, The Beatles article only had pop and rock listed in the genre field, because they have covered many subgenres of pop and rock throughout of their career. But even then, I think there should be a genre section in the article to describe the subgenres the band has played. Kokoro20 (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have great respect for the massive input Wesley Dodds has made to this project and can see the reasons he puts forward to ameliorate the situation. I had previously advocated the 'When in doubt, keep it general' attitude almost exactly as Wesley Dodds puts it forward and am not only convinced by the experience with the improvement in the quality of information in the articles when the logos were moved out of the infobox and into the articles, and see that even when the keep it general principle is tried, it generally fails. It is an entirely subjective field and unfortunately, even though (as Wesley Dodds points outs) there are hundreds of books that could be used, online sources such as AllMusic are (and would continue to be) drawn in to discussion to support, what are frankly, dubious genres. The quality of the information is only as good as the person making the observation on what genres a band belongs to, whether in print or in another box in an online source, and then when they disagree, we are not in a position to evaluate which is right, and are compelled to report fairly and evenly, this cannot be fairly done in a box listing, it can be done in the text of a 'Style' section that should be present in musical act articles anyway, where the weight of a book written observation can be valued against those online. I am not happy to give a listing that needs qualification knowing that 'infobox only readers' will not get a fair picture - if those readers don't want to read and understand the context, then that is their concern. I don't see a loss in navigation by losing the field - I don't see how they could navigate via this one anyway - there are categories (which, from my experience) tend to duplicate the less dubious listing in the infobox, so that is not a concern. I did a trial on an article (Featured status, relatively high traffic article) before I voiced my opinion and after one named editor replaced the genres it was warred over, a number of times, other more regular editors edited the page, who did not touch the field in whatever state it was - one ip added some related genre info - in the text of the article - when the page was without the genre field. For those reasons I still support the removal of the field.--Alf melmac 07:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alf. As one of the longest serving and most respected of all Wiki-administrators... your words speak volumes over everyone else's arguments... including my own. You've really hit the heart of the matter. It is the common sense and reason that the convo needed. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There may be good reasons to eliminate the field in the music artist infobox, particularly as musicians may evolve and experiment with many different styles. Take Darius Rucker, for instance, who started off as the front-man of rock band Hootie & the Blowfish and has now released a country single, "Don't Think I Don't Think About It", that is the first at the top of the country music charts by an African American since 1993. Is there some logical reason why "Don't Think I Don't Think About It" should be labeled "country" in the infobox, while the album it is on, Learn to Live, should not? Classifying albums by genre is industry standard. Sometimes they cross over, and that should be noted, but even the charts on which albums are ranked are identified by genre. Learn to Live was #1 on the Billboard Country Albums chart. That's somewhat unambiguous. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Moonriddengirl, that's an excellent example of why people support removing the genre field from the artist infobox; by the same token, there are also miles of albums that include multiple genres. the genre field was left in the song/single infoboxes because it's often easier to pinpoint one or two specific genres for a particular song/single than it is for an entire album, let alone an artist's entire ouevre. sure, some artists have unambiguously worked in only one genre, and/or released entire albums that are unambiguously devoted to only one genre, and the idea is that in those instances specifying the genre in the article lead-in shouldn't be hard on either editors or "casual readers". Sssoul (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be a reason to exclude the genre from the artist infobox (in fact, I do not oppose that removal, though I have not reached a point of supporting it, either), but I disagree that it is a reason to remove it from albums. I would heartily debate that it is any easier to pin a single/song to one or two specific genres than it is an entire album. :) Take, for example, You're Still the One by Shania Twain. If we only define it by the charts where it hit #1, it's both country & adult contemporary music, which is a style of pop. Prior to the removal of genre from the album infobox, Come On Over was listed under the genres of Country and pop, as appropriate. I'll also note that the album infobox has found room to include up to 10 professional album reviews (and when more than 10 exist, Wikipedia's editors are trusted to make an informed choice among them that provide a cross-section of opinions). If an album is demonstrably in three or four genres, we have room for that in the infobox, too. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem area re: edit wars... and I think we can all see it quite clearly... is the heavy metal and sub-genre heavy metal related articles. Albums, just as much as artists are daily battlefields. If we could target this specific subgenre of rock and give it its own box with no genre field that would be the ultimate solution. But we can't so we are stuck with an All/None problem. And the best answer is removed from all. It has been brought up that the field can also be just plain wrong. And seems to be a magnet for incorrectness whether by clear mistake or personal opinion. It all comes back to... "its an opinion field in a fact box" And that has no place here. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is what you perceive to be the best answer, but I disagree. I have found myself in the curious position of monitoring several articles for vandalism on subjects I care nothing about. Among them, the article Dapto High School, which has been subjected for over a year to vandalism from a variant IP editor. When the vandalism grew too extensive, that article was protected from IP editing. It would be contrary to the best interests of an open-source project to protect all high school articles because some of them, including that one, are subject to regular vandalism. I don't see it as any more effective for the project to strip "classical" from the thousands of classical articles because some heavy metal editors are tendentious. Again, genre is represented in both the single infobox and the book infobox. There is no reason that it should not also be included in the album infobox. The field can be just plain wrong--so can the field on album release dates. AMG, for instance, often messes that one up on older albums, listing them instead under the dates of re-releases. We don't remove the line from the infobox because of potential error. There is some subjectivity in genre, but not so much that genre loses its essential value. Radio stations frequently subdivide by genre: jazz, classical, R&B. Music stores frequently subdivide by genre, too. This is common in the music industry and it has had long consensus On Wikipedia that it does belong in the fact box. It has been in the infobox since its creation in 2004. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with specific genres is that it often borders on original research. i.e. editors have to make the decision. It's hard to say why a sourced specific genre should not be included. It's very useful information and ultimately that's the point of wikipedia not to keep it a discussion, debate and controversy free area as some editors here seem to think. -- neon white talk 08:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * i appreciate the effort Wesley Dodds has put into formulating a sensible approach to genre fields. but i question the underlying premise that a single clearcut "objective" definition can be provided for every genre; as IllaZilla has already noted, one source says one thing, another says another; genre definitions are POV, even when the POVs are learned, thoughtful etc. also, "be general except when being specific is more useful" doesn't seem like a very helpful guideline; it seems way too open to being interpreted as "put in whatever you feel like putting in", especially when it's combined with a prohibition of providing references. i don't like references in info boxes either, but backing up debatable assertions with reliable sources is wikipedia policy - which means (to me) that debatable assertions about genre don't belong in the info box. and then we can debate about which ones are debatable - or we can establish a clear policy like "leave genres out of the info box, discuss them in the article instead, where different viewpoints can be presented, referenced, etc." if that policy really is widely objectionable, alternative policies should of course be considered, but this proposal isn't currently clear enough to be helpful, in my opinion.
 * ps: three side issues i might as well address while i'm here:
 * 1] i became aware of this discussion because the music project talk page is on my watch list, not because i was part of any alleged "conspiracy".
 * 2] i'm really dismayed at the arguments that genres need to be in the info boxes because it's too much trouble to read the articles. if someone is interested enough in an artist to have an opinion about which genres should be mentioned, surely they should be interested enough to read more than the info box.
 * 3] if Wesley Dodds can provide a single clearcut "objective" definition of pop, please chime in on this RfC - thanks! Sssoul (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy says we represent all POVs equally (not removed them all entirely as has been done) this is what has been done withe majority of articles. It's not that it is 'too much trouble to read the articles', infoboxes are supposed to be quick and useful, genre is useful info to many people. -- neon white talk 09:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Addressing the first point, I hope no one is insinuating that. I just think the discussion needed wider input and longer deliberation, which is occuring now after the fact because people are noticing the infoboxes don't show genres anymore. Addressing point number 2, that's not the argument at all. Infoboxes give summaries of the article subject. Ideally everything in the infobox should be covered in the article body, and vice versa. As someone who's written a number of Featured and Good Articles, I don't want peopel just reading the infoboxes. As for the third point, give me a week or two and I'll try and turn up some sources that can be used; I'm busy with an FAR at the moment. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks Wesley Dodds - re the first point, the accusation of some kind of cabal or conspiracy has been made outright by neon white: "It's obvious that the only people involved in the so called consensus were those that had already expressed agreement in previous discussions". re the second point: i understand that that's not your view; it seems to be some other people's view, though. re the third point: thank you.
 * and to neon white: how do you propose representing all POVs in the info box? i agree that a general idea of the main genres an artist has worked in could be useful, but the point at hand is that in many cases there's no way to "objectively" establish what genre(s) are the most important in a given artist's ouevre. the Rolling Stones have done a lot of country-flavoured music - deciding whether or not that justifies listing "country" as one of the main genres in their info box is purely subjective. Sssoul (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a way to settle on what genres to use. You go by the consensus of sources. It's the same principle you'd have to use when discussing genre in articles. For example, I doubt any books that deal with country music would discuss the Rolling Stones at all. Elvis maybe, but definitely not the Stones. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * but sources on the Stones do routinely mention the strong country flavouring of much of their output, and i bet there are country music sources that mention Gram Parsons and his association with Keith Richards/the Rolling Stones - so this might be an excellent example of how tricky the question is. it seems to me indisputable that there's a strong thread of country flavour in the Stones' oeuvre; my subjective opinion is that "country" shouldn't be listed in their info box but  should be discussed in the article. the point at hand is how to formulate a guideline that addresses judgement calls like that. your current proposal (above) sounds to me too much like "if you have a source for what you're saying, put it in the article; if you don't have a source for it, put it in the info box" - which obviously isn't what you mean, but it is too easy to understand it that way.  "if a genre isn't mentioned and properly referenced in the article, don't put it in the info box" might come closer; but since we also don't want the info box to list 17 genres/subgenres (do we??), some clear guidelines about which genres to list there seems needed.  "consult all available sources and count how many mention each genre" doesn't seem at all practical. Sssoul (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between being part of a genre/movement and being influenced by one. That would need to be determine first in each article. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Soul, Libsey and Alf all make great points and, I, also, must thank WD for his input so far, it is much appreciated. Since forever, users have argued and argued over what genre a band is, this isn't going to stop at all. WD's point above about consensus of sources is probably as close as we'll get to a compromise. Going by Nirvana (band), sources state that Nirvana is a grunge band. So we chose grunge. But it's not as easy as that for other bands, which is where the warring comes from. If the field box was removed we could switch the genre discussion to the prose and mention, with reliable sources, all the genres that the band is associated with. To me it seems logical, and saves a hell of a lot of time dealing with pov genre trolls. Utan Vax (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a sensible plan to me, but I would like to make sure that people don't lose sight of the fact that under discussion here are two infoboxes: Template:Infobox Musical artist and Template:Infobox Album. Arguments that apply to one will not necessarily apply to the other. An artist may experiment with many genres across a career, but an album is a single point in time and is generally more easily defined (hence, even the charts frequently identify genre, as here). Take for example Sarah Brightman. She made her fame as an opera singer. Her first solo album, The Trees They Grow So High was folk music. Time to Say Goodbye is Opera crossover (Known on Wikipedia as Operatic pop). Occasionally, an album will crossover, but that's easily noted when it happens. The box has room for more than one genre. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * i reckon it depends a lot on what artists/albums one is considering; the artists i'm most interested in have very few albums that can be classified as just one genre, no matter what charts they've been listed in. (another issue is that the way charts classify things has varied over time, which leads to questions like which definition of R&B should "count", and/or does the fact that "Little Red Rooster" went to number 1 on the pop charts in 1964 mean that there's any reason to designate it as a pop tune rather than blues? but i digress, sorry!) for example (and i am thinking of a specific album here), is an album info-box listing "rock & roll, rhythm & blues (old definition), pop, psychedelia, country, blues-rock, Elizabethan blues" desirable, since all those are represented on the album (and sources could be found to support them)? if not: we'd need clear guidelines for which genres should be listed; if so, we also need clear guidelines, or else people will be adding "proto-punk", "rock" and "hard rock" to the mix as well, since that's how they hear it. or we can stick with the idea of eliminating the genre field from the album info-box and discuss genre in the body of the article instead.
 * i do see your point about bearing in mind that different criteria might be needed for artist infoboxes than for album infoboxes; it's just that it's also worth bearing in mind that it's not always easy to categorize an album by genre. Sssoul (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say no, that all of those genres are not necessary, as many of them are sub-genres. Way back in the early hours of my involvement in this discussion (yesterday :)), I noted that I thought the matter could be addressed less radically by utilizing something like AMG's differentials between genre and style and noted as an example that at List of music styles we have dozens, but in the template at the bottom of the page, these are divided between "Musical styles" and "Genres and movements." There are only 11 in the latter, which link to various subgenres. (I suggested there that we limit genre in the infobox to the major descriptor and leave discussions of variant styles to the article and offered as an example Dizzy Gillespie and His Big Band, a jazz album which is also Big band, Bop & Afro-Cuban jazz, all of which fall under the umbrella of jazz.) (With respect to "Little Red Rooster", I'm not that familiar with the UK singles charts. Do they subdivide as Billboard does into genre?) It may not always be easy to identify the genre (or genres) into which an album falls, but that doesn't mean that it's not valuable information for the infobox. Template:Infobox Book uses it, even though separating books into genre is also not always easy. When a book falls into more than one, they list it in more than one. (cf. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe) Template:Infobox Single still uses it, even though separating singles into genre... (etc.) :) (cf. "You're Still the One") The album Up!, which was released with three different genre versions, used to note that in the infobox, too. I maintain that it is a valuable part of a brief overview of the album--core information--which the infobox is meant to provide. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Moonriddengirl, i could agree with everything you're saying and still not feel it adds up to a sufficiently clear-cut policy to slow down people who add whatever they feel like adding to a genre field if there is one. you and i might agree about how many genres to list in an infobox, which definition of R&B "counts", what is a genre and what is a subgenre and/or whether/when subgenres are worth listing, but the next editor who comes along feels strongly that if three or four genres are listed then it's even better to list 17; that "pop" is an insult; that "hard rock" is a distinct and world-changing genre, not a subgenre of rock; and while he/she's at it, he/she never heard about R&B being defined differently in the past and defines "rock & roll" differently than we do, so he/she eliminates those even though you and i have 73 reliable sources all asserting that those are the main genres the album represents. so if the genre field is going to be reintroduced to the artist and/or album infoboxes, it really needs *clear guidelines* - preferably ones that will be clear to editors who imitate what they see, not just to those who read/think about policies & guidelines. and that's one strong advantage of not having a genre field - it makes it transparent what genres should be listed in the infobox: none.
 * regarding your question about UK charts, yes they're often named after genres, but a] they're not the same as Billboard's divisions; and b] i would question their value for wikipedia's purposes anyway. like Billboard's divisions, UK chart divisions have changed over the decades; i believe the main current ones are R&B, Dance, Rock, Independent, Country, Jazz, Blues, Classical, Soundtrack and Spoken Word.  (in 1964 there was a "pop" category and the Stones' rendition of "Little Red Rooster" went to number one on it - but i assert that it's a blues number anyway.)
 * and i did see your earlier reply to my earlier comment, and hope that what i've said here addresses most of that there as well. and sure, i too can think of singles/songs that defy easy classification by genre - but not as many songs/singles as albums/artists. Sssoul (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I almost missed this one. I hate the way these conversations sprawl, not the least because it's easy to lose your own threads but because for outsiders they suffer immediate "TLDR". :) My apologies for the delay. But note that problems such as you mention are resolved by creating clear guidelines. Again, we have limited music reviews to a project agreed definition, here. Although this is a guideline, it does help to establish community consensus so that we don't have to fight the same battle at every article. There's nothing to stop our doing the same thing for genres. What the community chooses to identify as acceptable genres for infobox purposes can be established by consensus just as what the community chooses to identify as acceptable reviews. For instance, we have 11 genres identified at template:Western music genres. We could use something like that to base a standard set on, with the note that discussion of subgenres and styles should be discussed with proper citation in the article body. (I'm not necessarily proposing specifically that. I don't know how that list of 11 was derived. I merely point it out as an example.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks, Moonriddengirl - yes, i keep saying (or anyway meaning!) that if genre fields are re-introduced to album and/or artist info-boxes, they really need clear guidelines. up above somewhere i semi-suggested a drop-down menu with a limited number of choices and a built-in limit to how many can be selected; IllaZilla noted that he/she had proposed that sometime back with far-from-positive results. i fear one early problem in hammering out something like that would be establishing the "short list"; for example even very reasonable sssouls like me can be irked by (just for example!) calling rock & roll "a subgenre of rock" when in fact it's a predecessor of rock as well as a co-existing style, and that's the kind of issue that leads right back to "is this field useful/encyclopedic if it's misrepresenting things?" but basically: sure, if people who want to keep the genre field in the info-boxes have proposals for clear guidelines for them, bring 'em on!  i do support the current removal of the field from the artist and album info-boxes, but if clear, practical and enforceable guidelines for what to include can be worked out, i'm listening. Sssoul (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I still haven't seen how any sort of vandalism should cause us to relinquish listing genres altogether for every single article. Again, there is absolutely nothing stopping editors from battling over various genres in the body of the article, so the removal of the field across the board really solves nothing. Wikipedia is built on the principle that articles should be sourced and vandalism and original research should be removed, aggressively. I fail to see why you'd ignore these principles here in favour of accepting defeat. We have admins, editors etc to deal with disputes, pages can be protected, editors can be warned that they must source information. We don't compromise Wikipedia to accommodate for trolls and edit warriors. I support the inclusion of the field 100 per cent. You guys have no right to remove it, and the good should not have to suffer for the bad. You simply cannot use a disproportionate sample of a few artists/albums that has had conflict over genre to say that the field should go altogether, especially in the face of so many people opposing it, willing to quell edit wars, or improve on sourcing. Deal with the vandals, not with the articles, since that is where the problem ultimately lies. According to WP:Vandalism, "Do not nominate an article for deletion because it is being vandalized. That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and simply encourages vandalism further." Same rule applies with the field. Oran e   (talk)  13:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "We don't compromise Wikipedia" we are doing so by using a field which houses subjective data better left to the text of the article. We are failing readers on this. My decisions are not influenced by the 'because of vandalism' argument - being a long standing administrator I am very used to blocking trolls and vandals and this is not about that, it is about using a field definitively where no definitive is possible.--Alf melmac 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not see the original discussion but my vote would have been to remove the genre field. I have read through the latest ideas for attempting to salvage the field but I do not see any suggestion that has not been tried in some way previously, and that was successful. The focus has been on reducing edit wars and I don't see where any of those suggestions will do that. Editors who are prone to engaging in these genre edit wars already show that they do not respect Wikipedia guidelines. Making the guidelines more complicated isn't going to promote them to start obeying the rules. I believe there has been a false focus on the edit war side of this issue. Those genre edit wars, as far as I can tell, are centered on the rock genre and the sub-genres of rock music. One issue that has not been mentioned with regards to non-rock music genres is the fact that many of the genre fields in the classical, jazz and blues music articles are blatantly incorrect. These genres are not as prominent in these discussion but, yes, they do have different sub-styles or periods and on Wikipedia some of the descriptions for these styles, especially jazz and classical, can be quite vague to the average reader. And editor misinterpretations of these descriptions are resulting in Wikipedia displaying false information. It's a subjective field of information. Having incorrect data in the field damages Wikipedia's use as a verifiable resource. If it were a small number of cases where these errors were happening it wouldn't take too much to try and correct them. But across thousands of classical, blues and jazz pages combined, both artist and album, these mistakes are overwhelming and it would be a daunting task to try and correct them all. As passionate as the effort has been to try and revive the genre field I just don't see where the end result solves problems. It just adds or re-creates them. So I stand by my first statement that the genre field should remain deleted from artist and album infoboxes. When the debate to remove the field from song infoboxes begins I will speak to that issue separately. Peter Fleet (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the operative words there are "sub-styles or periods". Hence, one could reasonably expect to hear both Bach and Berlioz on a classical station, and one would look for their albums in the "classical music" section of a record store. One is baroque, the other Romantic music, but both are classical. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This change has to be reverted as soon as possible. There is no consensus (and as more people find out about this change more people seem to reject the change). There is no doubt genre information is important, better yet, it's essential. In most articles it's the first thing that is mentioned (Band X is a Genre Y band from...). You cannot remove important information because of vandals. Kameejl (Talk) 14:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There was, and still is, a consensus. A consensus that has been added to right in this very section. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a lengthy discussion that was given enough time for people to speak up against this - no-one produced any counter-argument, the only argument I see which has been realsitic is moonridden's which refers to the idea not fully covering the album box, which I am persuaded by. No doubt it is important - but it is not definitive - it needs discussion so is not for inclusion in a box - it is for inclusion per the normal requirements in the text of the article.--Alf melmac 15:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The unanimous consensus to remove the field from Musical Artist Infobox was on October 8 after 9 days of discussion. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music The current editors voicing a problem with that change were not involved in project discussion for the 9 day period prior to the implementation. Most became involved only because of the change. Also, Kameejl you are replying to a new post from a member who just found out about the change (Peter Fleet) who actually agrees with the removal. The "essential" quality is a matter of debate in regards to the infobox. - Steve3849 talk 15:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The conversation about changing the album infobox was not publicized at WikiProject Album, which is arguably more involved in the use of that template than any other. While "Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community"; in this case, given that rather significant omission, I feel there was not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus among the people who knew about what was going on. The problem is that not everyone knew about the discussion. It shouldn't be the fault of the people who discussed it here for over a week and made a decision, it the others' fault who failed to have this page on their watchlist and do not keep up on project related changes. I was under the impression that this was only for the artist's box however. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a majority consensus to remove the field from Album Infobox as well with only one vote nay. I agree it would have been polite to give a heads up on the discussion pages of the respective infoboxes. But honestly, how many of us had the info boxes on our watch pages? - Steve3849 talk 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Before making a change to a fully protected page, consensus should be established. To reiterate, that requires "adequate exposure to the community". WikiProject Album can certainly be expected to have an interest in template:album infobox. Due to an unfortunate error, we were not notified of this discussion, nor was it referenced until after the change at template talk:album infobox (cf. WP:BOLD: Before editing templates or categories, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate WikiProjects.) I believe that the change to that template, at least, was for these reasons premature. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Project Album, right. Sorry. Agreed. - Steve3849 talk 15:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The four proposals suggested have all been tried to some degree and none of them are really going to stop the persistent edit-warriors we're dealing with. The only realistic option is to leave the genre field out of the infobox. I agree with Libs and Alf. I think I've performed at least 200 reverts because of the genre trolls.  Enigma  message 16:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you mind showing me where any systematic effort has been made to limit and define acceptable genres in album infoboxes? I'd be interested in reading discussion about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * an example of this being discussed in the past. [Also see where the cited genres were removed again and again. As for a systematic effort, I don't think so, but I also don't see how it would work. [[User:Enigmaman| Enigma ]] message 17:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Moonriddengirl, here's the link to a past dicussion that IllaZilla provided when i semi-proposed something similar earlier in this discussion. Sssoul (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sssoul and Engimaman, but, again, that seems to relate to the infobox for musical artist, not for albums. Would the same objections have been raised for the album template? Possibly, but so far as I can tell we don't know. I think it's a problem that these templates are being discussed together. It does stand to reason that there will be overlap in interest between the two, but, again, there are different considerations for each. I believe at this point that we should create separate sections to discuss each infobox. I also think an RFC might be helpful, at least on the album box. (Possibly on the musical artist box, but as I've indicated above I find myself somewhat neutral on that one.) I think it might give us a clearer idea of community consensus. (Or, perhaps, just a really, really, really long talk page. :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * i'm definitely feeling a need for a new section here, so if you feel like starting a new one for discussing just the album info-box for now, i'd go along with that! (by the way, i also replied to your earlier reply where you pointed out the template:Western music genres as one example of a "short list" that might be arrived at - don't feel obligated to reply there, but i did want you to see it) Sssoul (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tis done. :) Let's hope for some feedback. Frankly, my previous RFC efforts (I think this makes three in my history) have mostly resulted in a whole lotta' nothing. I don't deny that it would be difficult to nail down a grouping for genre. Currently, though, we seem to be on different sides of that divide, as I incline to the view that all is better than nothing and you to the view that nothing is better than all. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How about a second identical infobox just missing the genre field. If there is a war, just add a "2" to the end of the template name. That way articles benefitting (most) won't have to pay. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is mentioned in another sub-string discussion buried in this lengthy debate. Having 2 boxes isn't an option. Who decides who gets which box. User:Journalist learned the hard way after he created a POV box without any chance for discussion(the eventual discussion resulted in his POV box being soundly defeated and deleted). It has been mentioned several times in this discussion. It isn't just about curbing the edit wars. Alf has stated "it's the misclassifications and uniformative entries that the infobox gives". That has been repeated by several other editors right here in this page. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OMG, I've been away all day. Of Wesley's proposals, they are not strong enough in my opinion and many of them have already failed in the past. I'm also concerned that a number of the objectors coming here have a vested interest in genres (or a specific genre) on Wikipedia. Thus they might not represent the average Wikipedian. — Realist  2  18:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone who came to this discussion has an interest in genres, including you. Could you elaborate on what you consider "the average Wikipedian" to be? --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is my proposal:

*No more than 4 genres in artist infobox. If there must be more, stick to general genres like "rock", "hip hop", or "dance-pop" (last one's pushing it a bit.) *No more than 3 or 4 genres in album infobox. *No more than 2 or 3 genres in song or single infobox. *Any controversial genres need to be sourced. *Try to keep it general and simple but not overly so. Example: * Pop, dance-pop, electropop, hip hop, pop rap, trip hop, rock, electronica * Pop *Pop, dance-pop, hip hop *Eliminate voice type fields. They're too disputable and not necessary. *And don't put a link to the genre section in the genre field. Especially if the link is all there is. Tezkag72 (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Feedback and suggestions
Ok, so most of the comments so far has been the same back and forth between both sides. Aside from the occasional "I support this" and "These have been tried before" there hasn't been much comment on my suggestions. Please give feeback on how they can be improved, if possible. If you want to continue the "genre field is good/bad" back and forth, there's other sections on this page to do it. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone? I know there are some people on the fence in this discussion, and I'd like to do my best to find ways to assure them that the genre field could be useful and manageble with more guidelines and a more effective way of informing people of them. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry. This page has gotten sprawling, and I've kind of gotten that "tunnel vision". :) With respect to your guideline proposal, which I find very thoughtful, I am in agreement with everything I don't specifically mention. :)
 * I agree with your genre cap, though I'm unsure about limiting albums to one. I take your point about the ability to IAR, given that these are guidelines, but many albums cross over genre, even at the most general. And, by the way, I think general is better. I think an album should sooner be listed as Jazz than Swing, for instance. And if genres are general, I think four seems eminently reasonable for a band. If they're highly specific (acid-house-tinged-rock-with-a-touch-of-country), four may not be. :)
 * When you say "Ban linking to the "music style" or similiar sort of section from the infobox, and phrases like "Disputed subgenres"", I assume you mean within the same article? It's customary to link Jazz to Jazz and seems sensible to me. I agree that phrases like "Disputed subgenres" don't belong. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm referring to specific instances where in order to solve edit disputes, editors have written "Disputed subgenres" in the infobox and instead of linking to a particular genre page, it links to the musical style section of the artist's article, or at worst, a "debates about genre" section in the article. That is just bad form. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Blegh, I despise that practice. It makes the encyclopedia look totally unprofessional. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep them, just don't make them visible
Some articles, like U2 and all White Stripes articles have had the genres actually removed. Can we try and refrain from doing that, plase. Should we revert back to the old ways, then we're kinda stuck when it comes to articles like this (well, not really, just take a LOOOOONG time) Titan50 (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't know the wrath of the Genre Warrior, those things will fill up in no time. — Realist  2  18:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I've just removed unsourced heavy metal and folk rock (I mean really!) from "Stairway to Heaven" for the n-millionth time. However, while things are in a state of uncertainty, it would be better in practical terms to retain the fields and just not display them. -- Rodhull andemu  18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets us not give back the Genre Warriors toys. — Realist  2  18:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiki alf deleted the genre field from the Motorhead page last week just as a test. Four different IPs tried to put the field back within a 2 day spread and none of them replaced the content as it had been before removal. Each time it was slightly different to match their personal POV :D. Between that and the fact that a great lot of them have the wrong info to begin with just kills any idea that the field will ever be a practical any more. Sometimes they're funny and I will miss that part of it. NO sorry Mr IP but Johnny Cash is not Gothic Rock :D . The Real Libs-speak politely 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Be careful who you're referring to. There is actually a user called Mr. IP. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's focus here. What we reached a consensus on in the original discussion, and then implemented, was to remove the genre field from the templates for Infobox Musical artist and Infobox Album. That's been done, and now the field no longer displays in the articles. That's provoked an expected reaction, and now we have an ongoing discussion with many editors contributing, some supporting the change and others opposing it. At this point, if the consensus were to change, we could potentially revert the templates and the affected articles would revert in turn, displaying the genre again just as they did before the change was made (please note that I still support removal of the field, I'm merely acting as a mediating voice in this section at the moment). Titan50 is right: For the moment we can leave the articles themselves alone and be content with the fact that the field just doesn't display. It's a bit premature to go around to every artist and album article actually deleting the field and its contents. It's also not the best way to do it. We have lots of comments coming in now, from many editors, so we need to avoid rushing the next step until this debate reaches some kind of conclusion. If indeed we do go forward with actually deleting the genre fields from individual articles (which I still support as the end result), we really should leave that task to a bot. That way we ensure that it is done consistently, the same way across all articles, and also since it is all done by the same bot there is easy oversight and it can be easily rolled back if necessary. I still support purging the field, but it's important to do it right, in measured steps, to ensure consistency and redundancy. And we shouldn't move forward on that until this large discussion we have now reaches some kind of acceptable consensus. Rushing around deleting text from numerous articles only hurts the cause, in both the immediate and long term, because it makes us look rash and impulsive, not to mention furthering the impression that this is some kind of cabal, which of course it's not. This needs to be done, but more importantly it needs to be done right and in due course. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)