Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 12

Infobox debate 4: Huge complaint by Journalist
Does someone want to tell me why, even today, Wiki libs has taken it up on himself to continue to remove the genre field from individual articles, even while heated discussion continues on this page? ...I thought that we agreed to hold off all edits until the debate was over and proper consensus is reached. What if the genre field is reinstated? Who will put these back? If he is doing this, then why shouldn't others revert all of his changes? Better yet, what is stopping us from reverting the infobox ourselves? He doesn't care; why should we? Oran e  (talk)  04:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we all at least agree to stop removing the field in the meantime from individual infoboxes? The field is gone from the template currently, and that should be enough for the time being. Let's focus on discussion before we take further action. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, as I said above under "Keep them, just don't make them visible". Hold off on this, and if consensus is to move forward with it, do it with a bot. This ensures consistency and redundancy. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with all of you. There is no clear consensus, oh wait, NO consensus at all, and removing the text serves no purpose because of this and the fact that it isn't even displayed. Seriously, let's start taking edit action against the removal. I already reverted some of Libsey's edits stating these reasons, and he doesn't seem to care, probably being overwritten by his unjustified arrogance. I'm not going to continue, however, unless I have more of you guys with me. More users should talk to him first however, just as warning. Whoever is telling him to stop in his talk page needs more support anyway. Maybe we should get some admins to help? Angry Shoplifter (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Angry Shoplifter, it is not advised to incite an edit war against another user. Doing so will result in blocks. Please do not think that you're doing the "right thing". Same goes for you, Orange. You should know better as you're an admin. By the way, there is actually consensus for the removal, some people just need to cool it with the whole: "This is such an awful injustice!" - Everyone needs to take a step back and relax, things can be worked out. Even if the genre field is reinstated, there's no rush. Let's take the time to get a wider view from the community, not just from us assholes who work on the music articles 24/7. 16:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, anonymous, the name is "Orane", without the "g". Second, I do know better. That's why I haven't done anything. As for 'consensus', I'm tired of explaining. Oran e   (talk)  02:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this discussion from the wings and I feel the genre field should be left in the infobox and Libs should cease making changes. There obviously isn't consensus for the change as much as some editors want to believe there is. --FilmFan69 (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with all of the above, this should be stopped until an agreement is reached.  #   Ido50  ( talk  to me), at 21:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a rush to stop people from removing the field from articles though. --FilmFan69 (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. When is that ever allowed? It sounds pretty hypocritical.. (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It gets worse
Will you guys take a look at this? I am not holding my breath for "David Bowie is an English rock/glam/folk/blue-eyed soul/funk/dance musician . . ." Still think removing the genre field was a good idea? indopug (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Radiohead have a rather good musical style section which does provides cites - that edit has already been reverted as inappropriate (I would call it trying to make a point). Yes it's still a good idea for musical artists not to have a genre box. Is there a problem in opening with "Radiohead are an English rock group from Oxfordshire" - that appears to be the over-arching genre they work in? David's intro is as fine as one could get "David Bowie (pronounced [ˈbowiː]) (born David Robert Jones on 8 January 1947) is an English musician, actor, producer, and arranger." no need of ANY genre mention in the intro.--Alf melmac 15:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This example is one edit reverted. It also was a direct response to the elimination of the genre field on that particular day. The Radiohead article is stable looking through the history that follows. The David Bowie thing you made up, no? Do I still think removing the genre field was a good idea? Yes, I do. - Steve3849 talk 16:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to point out that Radiohead's infobox genre field has been consistently stable. The problems with the Bowie article have more to do with poor edits and no one overseeing it than with any fundamental flaw with the infobox or lead section. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Radiohead are an English rock group from Oxfordshire" is OK? O RLY? Since when did electronic music became part of rock music?Netrat (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because they are a rock band, doesn't mean they can't also be an electronic band. Kokoro20 (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When did it not? Which source says it isn't? Fair Deal (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Electronic music easily predates rock music. Theremin, an electronic instrument still used today, was invented in 1919. Musique concrète, the predecessor to Industrial music, was a musical genre of 1940's. Sources are available from stores near you corresponding WP articles. Netrat (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia electronic music article is currently tagged for being poorly sourced and full of original research. It also incorrectly categorizes the term as an actual music genre?, which it isn't. You were suggesting it be referred to as a reference? Fair Deal (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. Theremin has References section, full of reliable sources. Musique concrète has Further reading and External links sections, also full of reliable sources. Like this one, which clearly states that Musique Concrète is an early form of electronic music. Netrat (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * indopug, gimme five! That's exactly what i meant. Netrat (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So what's the fuss? Discuss taking "rock" out of the opening sentence. The lead sentence does not need to state genre, especially if it is a matter of confusion. ...and how does having a genre field make this any clearer for quick reference? - Steve3849 talk 23:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * a) In your opinion, it does not need it. In mine, it does. b) infobox is what visitor reads first, that's how. b) actually, I was not talking about Radiohead case, but about the simple fact that Genre Warriors are as comfortable with edit warring in the main contents, as they were with edit warring in the infoboxes. See above. Netrat (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, your entire problem would be solved if you were willing to read past the opening sentence:

The release of Kid A (2000) and Amnesiac (2001) saw Radiohead reach the peak of their popularity, although the albums divided critical opinion. This period marked a change in Radiohead's musical style, with their incorporation of avant-garde electronic music, Krautrock and jazz influences. Hail to the Thief (2003), which mixed guitar-driven rock with electronics and contemporary lyrics, was the band's final album for their record label, EMI. Radiohead's seventh album, In Rainbows (2007), which was first released independently as a digital download for which customers selected their own price, met with critical and chart success.


 * That's right in the lead. Again, if you're not willing to even read a lead section, perhaps you shouldn't be using an encylopdia as your main resource. This discussion, and this problem overall, shouldn't be/isn't about pandering to readers with short attention spans who aren't willing to read anything that's outside an infobox or first sentence. If that were the case, we might as well reduce all articles to 3 bullet points and call the encylopedia a failed experiment. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of the information in the album infobox is not duplicated in the article (e.g. the list of critical reviews), but at a glance it looks like the only things in Template:Infobox Musical artist that are not also in the article are the image and the official website, which could easily be under ELs. Indeed, most of it seems it would be in the lead. It seems to me that the infobox exists to provide a quick overview of important information. Genre is important information. If you go into most record stores looking for an artist with which the clerk is unfamiliar, the first question he or she asks you is likely to be what kind of music they play. It isn't, so far as I can tell, about whether or not our readers are willing to read beyond the opening sentence. After all, the artist's name is likely to be at the top of the page. It's simply a succinct reference. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To a degree, maybe. Most music retailers I go to sort their shelves by only the broadest possible genres: "Rock/Pop", "Hip-hop", "Country", "Classical", "Soundtracks", etc. A few of the more independent retailers may be slightly more specific ("Metal", "Punk"), but again this gets us into the problem of how general do we need to be, and how can we enforce that, and an on what model are we basing our definition of generality? --IllaZilla (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * and where i live most music retailers organize their wares in a totally different way. see the discussion somewhere above about the proposal of listing record-chart categories instead of genres: sure, that could be done, but it would be a big mistake to call the information "genre(s)". record shop categories, like chart categories, are not genres - some of them are sometimes named after genres, but they're groupings that are thought up by shops and charts for their own purposes, which are not the same as an encyclopedia's purposes. Sssoul (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We DO NOT want to enforce such depth. It's up to editors of each individual article. Netrat (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All I can say is that I'm thankful that this is a non-substituted template, and as such, it isn't removed by some bot or something, and I can still see the genres - if initially provided - when I edit. As for the removal, I would have chimed in against it, as I personally feel that this pigeonholing made life easier, say, in discussion. The problem, I presume, is edit/revert-warring. For such pages, perhaps locks could be implemented against non-registered users, and a section for the discussion of genre could be created. I don't suppose that this is somewhere appropriate for me to edit; if that's the case, my apologies. Qwerty (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox debate 5: Template:Infobox Musical artist, removal of genre
On October 8th, the "genre" section was removed from Template:Infobox Musical artist simultaneously with the removal of the "genre" section from Template:Album infobox. I'm opening this section since the original discussion is now archived and the similar section above is specifically an RfC to voice comments about removal of genre from Template:Infobox Musical artist Template:Infobox Album. I don't want to risk "muddying the waters" for any hapless RfC responders who may wander in. This conversation is confusing enough as it is. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * psst, Moonriddengirl: you mean "an RfC to voice comments about removal of genre from Template:Infobox Album" - this discussion is indeed confusing enough as it is. 8) Sssoul (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of muddying the waters! LOL! Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * er ... you may need to try that edit again 8) Sssoul (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Multitasking. Not good. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have a very good solution for this issue. Just bring back the genre section in both "artist" and "album" templates and everywhere else, and we will all get rid of this needless fuss. As I already pointed before, if someone is "so concerned" about Wikipedia's reliablity, I would suggest him or her to concentrate his or her intelectual potentials on political and historical articles, they are the most sensitive and vulnerable to POV-pushing (especialy those related to Balkans, Caucasus and so on). In those articles you can find private websites and blogs referenced as "sources" and all sorts of garbage, strangely no one cares and Im sure I will be criticized for "trolling"/"flaimg" after this, however Im not blind, deaf and stupid to put aside all that for the sake of the "genres" section. Regarding the "genres" issue, musical styles are often a subject of one's personal perception: one relevant musical critic or journalist can see Metallica as heavy metal, other as thrash metal; Bad Religion can be described as punk rock, hardcore punk or melodic hardcore and all of the descriptions will work fine. As I said, after all, you can use "citation needed" if you are in doubt. --Dzole (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking "fuss" by the way. I was most addlepated by its use... Oran e  (talk)  02:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In regards to Metallica and Bad Religion, you listed overarching genres and their subgenres. In sort, all those genres are correct; some are just more specific than others. See my comments below. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Just bringing back' the boxes unconditionally is not acceptable and would be ignoring those people who are trying to find a better way forward than the status quo - there are problems that can be tackled here and we should tackle them while we have this many brains available to work it all out.--Alf melmac 07:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I've personally written three band articles that have reached Featured Article status, and have had no major problems with the genre field in the musical artist infobox. Really, I have more problems dealing with people who want to go back and forth between American and British grammar than with that field. Any sort of artist, be it a writer or painter or musician, is often associated with a particular genre or movement. These genres and movements often have an ideological aspect, and their definitions help establish a context for that art. Oftentimes the genre or movement an artist is associated with is clear: Picasso was definitely part of the cubism movement, as the Sex Pistols were a punk rock band. And yes, there are countless books you can research about the topic of musical genre and on particular genres (My personal favorite is Simon Reynolds' Rip It Up and Start Again, a book about post-punk). As I have said above in regards to the album template, we need clear guidelines on how to approach genre in music articles. Not just in the infobox, but in the lead, body and categories. Honestly, not many people around here quite understand genre. Some people don't understand the concept of subgenres, or that an artist can be part of multiple genres. I've dealt with countless people who insist that heavy metal music is not a genre of rock, when all the sources I cited in heavy metal music say otherwise. The genre field is not purely subjective, but it can be if you don't know how to approach it. It can be a minefield if you don't understand the difference between a concert review and a study of a group's music when it comes to trying to pick a source form which to cite an artist's genre. Frankly, the majority of pages I have seen with infobox genre edit wars are not very well-written in the first place. By the time an article gets to the Featured Article Candidates process, the infobox genre has long been settled. We need to focus on how to write about genre in a eloquent manner in articles instead of attacking the problem in a blunt way that impacts excellent articles where that problem does not occur. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've only been involved in getting one band to Featured status and will agree that the AE/BE conflict is more visible than genre tinkering. Even so, the genre(s) field of the FA I worked on, up to the point before this converstion, was regularly changed about to suit whatever POV the editor had. I fully concur with your comments about people who don't realise that heavy metal is a sub-category of rock (I think you'd like Lemmy's comments on this - he feels the same way as we do, I think :D). I'd also agree that a lot of the warring happens on sub-standard/incomplete articles and I think we don't help the situation by not being more forceful with the currently available guidlelines. Totally agree with you that there is common misunderstandings on how genres and sub-genres relate to each other and the variances in critical analysis and how they should be used, we do need to help straighten this out. The current available guidelines could easily be repointed (with any additional caveats we decide here) in the specific guidance for the use of the template.--Alf melmac 07:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In my experience problems of this kind usually stem from new editors failing to grasp the concept of 'verifiability not truth' which is a wider issue than we can tackle here. -- neon white talk 11:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, like i said before, why can't we just take certain privaleges away from users who post bogus information and refuse to cite upon request? Why would taking the info box genres away completely be the first thing to even do here? I'm sure there's been well enough moderating on the pages to keep track of who has been doing what. I've apparently been warned over HeD PE, but I could probably find a review somewhere showing that would I did could be considered correct because they've been popularized enough. Can we show some intense ideas on this so we can solve it ASAP? There seems to be enough minds on the topic.. (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping Utan Vax and Wiki libs reply to your "why can't we" and "I'm sure there's been well enough moderating " points above, they have a broader experience with both of those than I do. I also hope we can get this sorted out amicably for all parties concerned :)--Alf melmac 07:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to punish them, most of them use ever changing IP's or sock puppet. Unless we want to start throwing range blocks around more willingly. — Realist  2  10:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what "semiprotection" is for. It's worked in those cases where I've had to use it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Going off of what Moonriddengirl said, disruptive users in any form shouldn't be allowed to be . . . disruptive (yeah, it's late for me). The fact is there's always going to be anonymous IPs and sock puppets wo screw around with various areas of Wikipedia, and the key is to deal with them accordingly. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems terrible to semi protect a whole article all because of a Genre Warrior in the infobox. I wonder if the genre section could have a separate infobox and we just semi protect a transcluded version of it? Genre warriors are persistent sockers — Realist  2  11:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, it would be fantastic is sections could be protected individually. Not sure about the practicallity of implementing it but it certainly would be useful. -- neon white talk 11:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if a user is that disruptive, then protecting the page would be as necessary as it would be if someone kept changing the grammer style throughout the article, or kept mucking around with the associated acts, or kept deleting referenced facts in an article. Yes, it would be a shame to protect a page over that, but it would be necessary until people can address whatever the problem is and solve it. As I've said elsewhere, the key to avoiding such problems is to have better guidelines on how to address genre in Wiki articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ... but are most of the problematic genre edits being made by anonymous vandals, or by people who feel (strongly, even) that they *do* know what they're talking about? i still don't understand how a policy could be reasonably introduced/enforced whereby genre fields would only be edited by people who have the same erudite grasp of genres as whoever establishes the guidelines. requiring genre to be discussed and properly sourced in the article before it's allowed in the info-box might be a step toward that, but ... [scratching head] ... Sssoul (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's rather simple: you have to inform these "anonymous vandals" about Wiki policy and if they fail to comply, well, that's what bans are for. This applies to any aspect of Wikipedia. Yes, there's always new vandals, but that's because there's always new people discovering Wikipedia each day. And frankly, the genre field is one of the lesser worries I have when dealing with anonymous vandals. Any time someone's acting like a dick on Wikipedia, no matter what it is, tell an admin. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see genres as the sole or necessarily even major draw for vandals, though I'm sure it is on some articles. I'm in the odd position of babysitting William Beckett (singer), who I have never that I know of heard, as he is evidently the hottest thing evah and scores of IP editors have either been personally romantically linked to him, or, contrarily, hate him with the passion of a thousand burning suns. When enough random ip editors vandalize the same article, semiprotection puts the breaks on for a while. Hopefully, people get bored and go home while its semiprotected. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wesley Dodds, sorry if i wasn't clear enough: i posit that many/most of the persistently problematic genre-related edits are made by editors (anonymous or not) who feel like they know what they're talking about, not like they're indulging in vandalism. what policies are you suggesting quoting to people whose grasp of genre is not the same as yours, and who have sources that support their views (whether you or i consider their sources insightful or not)? and when they respond by pointing out policies like WP:OWN and WP:CCC, who is "right"? and so on.  Sssoul (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (This, to Sssoul) You make a good point there. The few genre wars that I have witnessed have been passionate, and some of those whose genres have been resisted come armed with reliable sourcing (one that comes to my mind was a Rolling Stone descriptor of emo to Simple Plan). I did not enter into that dispute, but it seems to me that such an (evidently) unusual genre label would bear discussing in the article talk. If genres are general and limited in #, that could help address that. But at that point, dispute resolution enters in, and any editor who doesn't abide by consensus is in danger of running afoul of Disruptive editing, which is blockable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * to Moonriddengirl: i agree that those kinds of differences of opinion about genre can and should be discussed in the body of the article. but then once it's in the article, and properly sourced, can it go in the info-box even if it seems "debatable" to some editors?  restricting the info-box genre field to some limited number of general genres is (for me) extremely thin ice, since it runs (i fear) a very great risk of misrepresenting the music - which is one major reason some people are against listing genres in the info-box at all. (earlier in this whole brouhaha i *was* pondering the concept of a "short list of genres for info-box purposes", but as the discussion continues i just see more and more drawbacks to it.) Sssoul (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As i just wrote above the problem is with new editors not understanding the concept of 'verifiability not truth' (also Parkinson's Law of Triviality). If we can verfiy the genre of emo for simple plan in rolling stone it's verifiable. That doesn't mean it's 'the truth'. Obviously creating article summaries calls for some consensus decisions to be made but I do not think you can limit genres without resorting to some original research or synthesis which will likely lead to more disputes. -- neon white talk 12:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point, as I am supposed to be limiting my comments to the music infobox, I am somewhat out of things to say. :) I can see the problem of listing the 100 genres and subgenres in which Incredibly Diverse Musician X may have participated over the life of his career. If genre is to be included in the Musician infobox, I support the prior guideline of keeping it general--at which point the overwhelming task becomes identifying what that means. Is emo general? If not, under what umbrella does it fall? punk? rock? If a hybrid of the two, does it supersede its parents and stand alone? (And, Sssoul, it may come down again to the divide of all or nothing. When it comes to this infobox, I am undecided on that.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah, in the spirit of "keep it general" i've often successfully used the argument that the genre field shouldn't amount to "bread, rye bread, wheat bread & seven-grain bread" - but i probably appear irrational when i simultaneously insist (as i do) that early rock & roll is NOT covered by "rock".
 * meanwhile, trying to think up something for the more "unambiguous" artists out there, what if the policy were something like "if the artist's oeuvre can be accurately summed up by three (or fewer) of these very general 'short-listed' genres, they can go in the info-box; otherwise genre needs to be left for discussion in the body of the article." but creating that short list is gonna be a bugger; and with the artists i'm most interested in it would still be a totally subjective judgement call to decide whether three general categories constitute an "accurate summing up" of their oeuvre: if someone else tried saying it did suffice, i'd say (passionately & eruditely, even!) that it absolutely doesn't - and what clear, practical and enforceable criteria could settle who is "right"?
 * so it's still feeling to me like "all or nothing" territory, and i'm in the "nothing" camp: discuss genre in the article, in all its nuanced glory, not in the cramped confines of an info-box field. Sssoul (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you ask me, genres should only be kept more general, if the band has covered too many genres to be listed. And even then, there should be a genre section in the article. Kokoro20 (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Restore the genre section! That's the main reason I have when browsing on artists. Genre claims might be controversial, but avoiding the controversies just for the sake of a false stability won't help, in any way, removing the nature of that discussion. Associating an artist with a sort of genres sometimes does get the debate into subjective ground, but certainly the existence of genres is unavoidable. Just for having some subjectivity with many people, doesn't mean there aren't any verifiable sources. It would be like removing the "impressionist" claims of a paint just because to any person out there it seems like "abstract". The results of this will be LESS UTILITY to the Infobox, as you remove one of the primary ways of searching and browsing. It is always imperative to have the most common -for the average person- ways of surfing through loads of information, and, in this case, genre, I strongly believe, is an important scope. How can one relate an artist to his musical style? Suppose you have to do an investigation tomorrow on an odd artist; there, you are condemned to browse throughout the article and that, on the first place, WON'T ASSURE YOU LOCATE ANYTHING RELATED TO HIS GENRE. Wikipedia becoming less utilitarian as puritanism grows. Hell, one can say the Universe is subjective and that won't solve a problem when relating information. You absolute relativists, must recognize the existence of different genres and musical scopes, and the facts of artists oscillating among them... there are artists who do play many genres in a single song. Well, in that case, there is a name for that, THERE IS ALWAYS A GRANTED CLASSIFICATION. Rejecting such a well established classification system by means of reduction is not productive. You didn't add tagged browsing as a replacement, NOTHING. This was completely a part of Wikipedia, and I fail to see how it was not compliant to rules. Sources, if you wish... they exist! I oppose, oppose, and... oppose to such a repugnant policy. 189.142.179.36 (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (Discussion and verification make the human knowledge HUMAN.) Sorry for the lack of paragraphs, but I'm in a hurry. By the way, my username is AFOH. 189.142.179.36 (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * With regard to searching by genre, that's what categories are for. Genre should be mentioned in the lead, and expounded on in its own section in the article body with references. How does the infobox help you search or browse? It's not a search tool, clicking on a genre name in the infobox doesn't link you to other artists of that genre. I don't understand your point about searching/browsing. Again, the categories serve this purpose. That's what they're for, and they do a handy job of it. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think what was meant by it was that it's easier to find the genre, prior genres, or specific album genres based on a quick look at the info boxes, rather than reading through thickness to see exactly what type of band your dealing with. Especially if it turns out you read it all for nothing because they won't interest you. It cuts down on a lot right there. (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well then, again, it should be mentioned (& wikilinked) in the lead, which should be no more than a couple short paragraphs long. If you're not willing to read even that much, then an encyclopedia isn't the best resource for you. If you're searching for "bands I might like", you're better off using Myspace, Last.fm, Rhapsody, iTunes, or one of the many other music databases/distributors out there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a music distributor. If you can't figure out from the lead section whether or not an article interests you, then that article's got problems that a few measly words in an infobox can't fix (WP:LEAD, to begin with). --IllaZilla (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)