Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 16

Articles for deletion/John Dahlbäck
I created the article on DJ/producer John Dahlbäck yesterday and the article has since been nominated for deletion after already been deleted once. Granted, the article is by no means a finished GA, but I think, without being an expert, that the article at least could be an acceptable stub given his notability. Mr Dahlbäck was featured on Pete Tong's Essential Mix on October 4th, and judging by his discography I would guess he is notable enough for an article, but what do I know? Could someone from this project just make a neutral comment on the notability of Mr Dahlbäck on his article's talkpage since I'm not 100 percent certain on the notability guidelines of musicians. Thankfully, Sebisthlm (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Was he the subject of the full program (ie no other musicians featured). If not, he wasn't the subject of the program and that would fail critera #12 at WP:MUSIC. --JD554 (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article doesnt currently assert a great deal of notability, if you believe you can improve that i suggest adding a 'rescue' tag to the article and noting that in the afd. It's not great practice to nominate such a new article for afd. -- neon white talk 16:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Some sources here. billboard.com and allmusic -- neon white talk 16:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Being listed on a directory doesn't make him notable. --JD554 (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Having a profile on billboard.com does. -- neon white talk 22:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? (the profile there is a mirror of the Allmusic one) --JD554 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Discography sections
I'd like more discussion and form a consensus on discography sections. Please go Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians for more information. Thank you. DiverseMentality (Boo!)  01:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

New ABC extension
FYI, Kate wrote a new extension for generating sheet music in abc notation. See the tech mailing list and mw:Extension:ABC. Thought I'd mention it here to get some input from those most likely to be using extensions like this one. --bainer (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources and consensus
There's something I'd like to put to the members of this project, something that needs clearing up, for me at least. It regards genres, but please let's keep the infobox debate separate, it's nothing to do with this query.

Regarding genres, should we go with source consensus, or take all sources? Essentially, if we have a source which is a single music journalist, a RS, is that enough to add in a genre for a band? Some have told me that yes, it is, as long as a source terms a band/artist X genre, then it should be added. Others have informed me that we need source consensus, that a single journalist's opinion is not really enough unless there are other sources backing it up.

So, which would people say it is? I'd like some clarity on this issue because it causes a lot of conflict. Prophaniti (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a good question. I don't think it needs to stay separate from the prior discussion because it is related to the new guidelines that WesleyDodds is preparing. - Steve3849 talk 22:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just so we're clear, if you're talking about allmusic, then that's not one journalist. Since they are a panel of music experts, their opinions technically hold more weight than a single journalist, if some opinions hold more weight than others. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is related to the infobox debate. The main arguments for replacing the genre section of the infobox with a section in the article is that with such you can represent genres in context. -- neon white talk 23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, my proposal addresses this. I'm trying to finish it up soon, but I keep thinking of new things to address in it. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the current debate: I'm not trying to force things apart if it does genuinely enter into this one or vice versa, just to keep this from drifting off the original topic of my question and getting too caught up in it.
 * It concerns various sources, allmusic is one of them. Could you point me to where it says that all band genre information is verified by a panel of experts? That's not intended fecitiously: it's simply that each band biography gives a single author, suggesting it was only composed by a single journalist.
 * This is just what it seems though: a genuine query regarding sources for this information. Even if the infobox section is removed, we'll stil have genres within the article in their own section, and there would still be the issue of whether a single journalist is enough to warrant a mention of a particular genre. Prophaniti (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion: when sources are limited a single journalist is fine. However, when sources become more plentiful then consensus should be used regarding disputes. - Steve3849 talk 02:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds sensible, and is generally how I look at it too. It's a matter of percentages, really: if we have 50 journalists, 1 will only be 2% of the total. If we have 3, 1 journalist represents 33% of the total. If this line is taken it becomes a question of what defines plentiful, in this context. Prophaniti (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not just a music articles issue; the guideline with all Wiki articles is that you read all the sources and determine what the consensus of those sources is. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * True, it just seems to cause a particular degree of contention on this issue. What I'm trying to do is get some kind of consensus/discussion here, because some will say a single source is enough, others that it's not. There seems to be uncertainty as to what exactly constitutes "consensus", and while I have my own idea of it it would be helpful to have a proper discussion here. Prophaniti (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * According to NPOV policy all point of views and opinions should be represented fairly without implying any is more 'correct' than the other as we are dealing with what is largely a subjective subject, there can be no correct one, so all really need to be represented. --neon white talk 12:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * actually WP:NPOV includes NPOV, which states that not all viewpoints are to be represented. Sssoul (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(reset) The above points by neon white and Sssoul are perfectly representative of the reason why I brought this here originally. Some will say all views need to be represented, others that NPOV states they shouldn't, and it's the existence of these separate views that seems to create a lot of conflict. Of course, if we have only 2 sources for a band genre, and both are reliable, then both should be represented. Likewise, if we have a 100 sources, a single one that calls the band something different to the rest needn't really be included, it's not representative. But where do we draw the line? Prophaniti (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * it's a good question, Prophaniti - by citing a policy i didn't mean to sound like i was dismissing your question. i don't know what the answer is. there are so many variables (including but not limited to the shoddiness of a lot of "music journalism" and the fuzziness of genre definitions/boundaries).  WesleyDodds' idea "that you read ALL the sources" isn't too practical if you're considering artists who have been written about by thousands of writers over several decades; and it still leaves us with the question of what sources count as reliable and for whom. i suppose my feeling is that this question isn't going to find a "one guideline fits all" answer, unless it's just "consensus among the editors of a given article, assuming they know what they're talking about, are reasonable, etc". Sssoul (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually you need to read the policy more carefully, it says "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source" I doesnt say not to include them but to give them appropriate weight. The only thing that shouldnt be included are fringe views. Whilst there is a lot of confusion about technicalities (numbers shouldnt be relevant when you're talking about 'weight'), the point of the NPOV is to stop editors with agendas from deciding that a viewpoint is not important enough and thus creating an unbalanced article. I've been involved in so many disputes about neutrality where there seems to be confusion about the wording of this policy but that isn't really for discussion here. Personally i'm not sure it should even be an issue, we're hardly talking about the global warming debate. It should be that controversial. --neon white talk 22:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * neon white, perhaps it's you who needs to read Prophanti's posts more carefully; i think what he/she is asking is (basically) where to draw the line between "fringe views" and "significant minority views". right, it's not an earth-shaking issue, but he/she would like some kind of guideline. if you've got one, good. Sssoul (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say it is quite practical to read every source available on a subject. I've done it a number of times. If I haven't read it, someone else working on the article has. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * smile: we're plainly talking about two very different scenarios, WesleyDodds. that's all right - as long as we both realize that the scenarios that seem common to us personally are not the only scenarios that need to be considered. Sssoul (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel like these issues are a lot like American politics: on one hand, we have those who say "let the editors decide what is reasonable for each article on a case-by-case basis", analogous to "leave this under the individual states' jurisdiction"; and on the other hand, we have those who say "let's come up with a solution for a problem that will potentially affect all articles in our scope", analogous to "let's amend the Constitution". In this matter, I think we should let this be decided on a case-by-case basis.
 * However, I am not so naive as to believe there won't still be fanatic editors who insist that their genre selection is "the right one", and that other sourced genres are bullshit. To deal with this, perhaps we could establish a "Genre Mediation Committee"—essentially a group of editors willing to handle genre edit wars (similar in thrust to the Mediation Committee). Of course this should not be used until after talk-page efforts are made. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not necessary. What I feel needs to be done is that editors need to become more familiar with guidelines and policy on Wikipedia. They are in place to help editors come to appropriate conclusions when evaluating sources. These sorts of problems aren't just limited to genre issues; they exist with all sorts of topics. Editors are getting tunnel vision here. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, editors should at least familiarize themselves with WP:NPOV and WP:V for genre wars. We should encourage that editors strive to reach consensus on talk pages. The committee suggestion was intended only if necessary—if it isn't necessary, that's much better! I don't know how often genre wars arise as a serious issue; maybe only infrequently. If they are frequent, we could at least improve exposure to the relevant policies/guidelines and to the steps to get things worked out. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There certainly is an issue with editors not reading the guidelines properly. However, it still might help if we had some more defined clarity on this particular issue (which the current proposal may help with, we'll see).
 * "To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." The problem is in how you define such views, within the context of music genres. How many journalist views do there need to be for a single one to be considered "tiny-minority" or a significant-minority view that isn't worthy of being included in the genre section itself? Prophaniti (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Slang terms, nicknames and abbreviations
There seems to be quite a few articles about bands that contain unsourced nicknames, slang terms and abbreviations for a band name as an alternative. Some of them seem to be either made up for the article or at least only used amongst a select group. I just want to clarify the rules around the inclusion of such terms. I consider the rules about neologisms to apply here - "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" - in that simply pointing to uses of the term cannot be considered reliable evidence and there must a reliable source documenting the use of a term. For instance documents the Frank Sinatra's 'chairman of the board' nickname. Any opinions? --neon white talk 15:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I had a similar problem with My Chemical Romance, with editors insisting that the fan-used nickname "My Chem" be mentioned in the lead, even though it does not in fact appear to be an abbreviation used by the artist at all (ie. it does not appear on anything "official" such as albums, merchandise, or website) and I have never seen it used in reliable music press either. I agree that if it can't be referenced to a reliable source, it should be cut. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The manual of style is unclear and seems to contadict WP;NEO somewhat suggesting the adding of 'common abreviations'. I think there is lack of any clarification of what 'common' actually means. Obvious common sense applies but it seems very easy for an editor to say i hear it alot and read it alot on forums therefore it's in common use, which just smells like OR to me. I've brought it up at MOS and see what happens there. --neon white talk 19:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Genre guidelines proposal progress
I've been working on my proposal a week longer than I said I would be, and I'm still not done. Still, I'd say it's about 90 percent complete. Most of the remaining work revolves around rephrasing my own words to make sure the instructions I detailed are understandable for everyone and easy to follow. With that in mind, please take a look at my draft here and leave comments in this talk section if something is confusing or if you think something should be rephrased for clarity. Please do not express support or objection to this proposal yet. We're not at that point yet. That's what we're doing when I finish it, and I'm not finished. I want to make sure I can write out the best guideline I can before we discuss whether to implement it or not.

So once again, if something in the guideline draft doesn't make sense to you, please post comments here and I'll do my best to address them. Do not comment on the guidelines themselves. We'll get to that soon enough. And please, don't make edits to my workspace; I'll implement changes myself. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * this sentence is extremely unclear: "Understand that with popular music, genres with defined musical traits and musical movements that are loosely defined are grouped together." the rest seems mostly comprehensible, and as requested i hereby stifle my comments on the actual content. Sssoul (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll fix that in the morning. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Rephrased. Is that clearer? WesleyDodds (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * well ... no, it isn't. what is the point you want to make here? the imperative form of the sentence is also not too felicitous. Sssoul (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe: "Genres can be either clearly defined musical styles, or more loosely defined musical movements." — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I rephrased it to say that. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't read it yet (I am about to), but my first reaction is that it is very long. This will only be used as a last resort after a dispute arises, not as a cause for dispute, I hope? Because I can foresee some wikilawyers/crusaders reviewing this guideline, then finding faults in music articles that don't comply with it (much like the MoS crusaders do when reviewing FA candidates, for example). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's intended as a guide; basically a how-to. And yeah, length is a concern for me, but I feel that will be cut down once we get around to revamping the rest of the music guidelines on Wikipedia (for example, the information on acceptable sources would be moved to more releveant sections once we write other guidelines). WesleyDodds (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor grammatical note: I see one or more "try and" s that should be changed to "try to" s. Just nitpicking. Overall it looks very well-worded. —IllaZilla (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Will rectify that as much as possible. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also under "Formatting": "unslightly" -> "unsightly". I also note the bit about "Divide genres using commas, not paragraph break script." Although I agree with this wholeheartedly, I believe it was a large source of contention in the past, and there are certain editors who get very incensed about it. Again, I agree that it should be commas rather than line breaks, but I think that's a different can of worms that could potentially get this proposal bogged down in debates about semantics. —IllaZilla (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer the breaks; I was under the impression that consensus had settled on comma, though. I think for now I'll stick with commas, mainly because it keeps the infobox from taking too much article space. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not leave that clause out altogether (for now)? That is a formatting issue, not a "what genres should be included" issue. We can deal with it later, if necessary. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I wanted address the subjects of genres as a whole in articles, and as a result I have to tackle formatting in the infobox field. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd let that one go for now. It's not a major issue. As suggests, it might create too much debate to get these guidelines moving ahead. I'm happy that you're taking the initiative to draw up these guidelines, but having a fight over something so petty (especially since you prefer breaks) would probably discourage your efforts on this. (I hope my comments below don't discourage you.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry; your comments are helpful. There's only so much work I can do in a vacuum. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with using "Pop, R&B, Funk, and Rock" to describe Prince or using "Alternative rock, Electronica, and Trip-hop" to describe Björk? Neither is more than the four-genre limit you suggested earlier. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Funk is a subgenre of R&B. Prince's music spans a number of overarching genres, so it's most effective to simply list only the overrarching subgenres; funk will be covered by including the entire R&B genre anyways. Same with Bjork (although in that case the infoxbox is listing subgenres only, when it should be broader). The idea is if you're dealing with a subject broadly, stick to broad terms. It's more a effective summary that way. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "Do not rely on allmusic as your sole source" point gets an enormous thumbs up from me. I for one am sick of that site being used as the absolute gospel end-all reference. Prophaniti (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

-sigh- Ok, this is why I wanted to hold back on this for a bit. I appreciate the comments, but for now, let's all stick to "Does the phrasing make sense or not?" Any further questions about the guidelines themselves beyond "I don't get it" can wait until later. Twas Now, I've hidden your comments below because we were getting off-topic. I mainly need to make sure people understand and can follow the draft first; the discussion of the points contained in the draft is something for later. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this proposal is nothing short of trying to justify removing genres from a disputed article, previous to November 2. It likes the police arresting someone on a trumped up charge and then asking parliament later to pass law to fit that charge. Do me a favour Dodds, stop speaking down to editors in a condescending manner. Better stick to alternative music than dictating to people who are actually part of a wikiproject that actually edits that article. MegX (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not assuming good faith, and that's also ignoring a month of discussion on this very talk page that led to the crafting of this proposal. Have you read the previous discussions about the genre field on this page? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't regard singling out an album for editing while leaving others alone as "good faith". MegX (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what your talking about. If you're referring to our current discussion about Led Zeppelin, I think you gravelly miscontrue where I'm coming from. I've been working on this proposal for over two weeks, due to a loooooong discussion that took place here about the removal of the genre field in infoboxes at the start of October. Check the archives for this talk page for details. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps WesleyDodds could clarify where exactly he hopes his document will go if it is approved? Which music projects would use the guiidelines? (Please note there are about 50 active music projects represented and they range widely in subject matter.) -- Klein zach  06:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A subpage of WikiProject Music, I suppose. All descendent projects (Albums, Songs, genre projects, band projects, etc.) would adhere to this guideline, as established in previous discussions. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you need to think a bit more about this? It's fine to discuss your ideas with Albums, Songs and the band projects - which may find new guidelines helpful - but they only constitute a small part of the music spectrum here. Re 'genre projects', I'm not aware of any active ones of this type. Which ones are you referring to? (The Music genres project itself is defunct, though I suppose it could be revived.) -- Klein  zach  08:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of WikiProjects devoted to specific genres. WP:ALM (of which I am a member) is highly active, for one. The metal and hip hop ones are active, as well. We established in past discussions that these guidelines would be utilized for all music articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WesleyDodds: Hold on. No such thing has been established. Most of the music wikiprojects have not been involved in previous discussions. They are certainly not bound by them. You should get agreement to any new guidelines on a project by project basis. The Music project is an umbrella project serving the 50-odd music related projects, it doesn't dictate to them. That's not the Wikipedia way. -- Klein zach  23:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We established in previous discussions that I was going to draw up a guideline proposal that I would present here. In fact, it's the only reason the genre fields were restored in the infoboxes for the time being. We also established we'd be notifying all the music-related WikiProjects as well as everyone who commented on the infobox genre debate when I finished in order to discuss it. This is not something new we haven't discussed before. Why is everyone acting like I sprung this on everyone from nowhere?WesleyDodds (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * just to refresh everyone's memory, here's where WesleyDodds proposed drafting something like this for discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_13 Sssoul (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that we may be ready to move beyond discussing comprehensibility? (I personally find the guideline comprehensible. :)) I'd suggest that we centralize discussion to User talk:WesleyDodds/tempwork2. That way, if the guideline is adopted, the discussion about it will be connected to it, which will be valuable for archival. It will also allow this page to continue to function for other matters rather than being overwhelmed with genre talk, as it was before. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "In fact, it's the only reason the genre fields were restored in the infoboxes for the time being." Oh, really? Ithought genre fields were restored because there was a huge outrage among WP editors when it was removed. Netrat (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * just for the record: here is where Rodhullandemu restored the genre fields. WesleyDodds' proposal to draft something for discussion was mentioned as something upcoming, not as a "reason" for reinstating them. Sssoul (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right. It should be remembered that Rodhullandemu restored the genre fields on his own initiative. -- Klein zach  03:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to move discusion to the temp page talk page, because I plan to use the page for other things in the future. I still am working on the proposal, so unless there are other comprehensibility concerns, I think we can close this discussion for now and then move on to discussion about the guidelines themselves when I finish. I just wanted feedback in case I wrote something confusing. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what the "move" option is for. :) You finish, you move to project space, you get your title back. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I am the only editor who was under the impression that this was going to be a section in an overall styleguide for music related articles>, which i think is much needed, i think there are many other style issues. --neon white talk 12:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It will be, but I'm writing this part first, since genres were the pressing issue. Actually I was the one who suggested a complete overhaul of music guidelines; most everyone else just wanted to see what genre proposal I'd come up with. This is difficult enough to write, and after we discuss it and implement/reject it, I'd definitely want everyone to take a breather for a bit before moving on to a larger project. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My concerns are that they are quite lengthy to be included in a future music artist manual of style. I really think it needs to be kept very simple or it's just going to create more points of contention. --neon white talk 17:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we really need such guideline. Common sense should be enough. If there are people who cannot use it and start edit wars instead, no guidelines would help. Still, I'm going to read and comment the project. Netrat (talk) 22:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Putting a limit for the genres listed in the genre field is a bad idea and could just increase the genre wars. There's some bands which cover more than 4 genres. Same with albums in that some cover more than 3 genres. Same with songs in that some cover more than 1 genre. And also, I think it looks better if the genres are separated by line breaks rather than commas. Kokoro20 (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've heard that same argument before. Curious. Kokoro, the argument "it looks better" really doesn't have any weight. It doesn't matter if it "looks better" (in your opinion), we need to have what works best. Scarian  Call me Pat!  15:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Line breaks work better because they make it easier to read. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Commas work better as they are standard encyclopedia list formatting and album and song boxes already use commas by consensus for spacing. Consistency must be maintained throughout all boxes. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Indopug noted that commas-only can occasionally create formatting problems in some browsers (specifically, creating huge spaces between words if the genre linked has more than one word), so I modified the guideline slightly to allow breaks when necessary to rectify this. Commas would still be preferred, per Wiki Libs. One of the main problems with breaks (by the way, I personally prefer line breaks aesthetically) is that it extends the infobox more than using commas would, and that can cause formatting problems with subsections below the lead if the box is too long (text and pictures moved awkwardly and all that). Line breaks might look good in the infobox, but they might make the sections below the infobox look like a mess, and the latter is of far greater importance to consider.WesleyDodds (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note. It has been brought up a few times times in previous delimeter discussions that the coded breaks can be an issue for Wikipedia readers with vision difficulties who use a reading assist software to aid them in viewing Wikipedia and using it as a resource. If Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia for everyone to use... the coded breaks end up discriminating against this group of readers. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a way we can fix the formatting problems that occur with commas so we don't have to use breaks? Because then that solves the issue nicely. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that's accurate. I've worked on sites that are required to be accessible and have never come across any problems like that. W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines doesn't mention it. --neon white talk 17:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Libs, consensus can change, and being "encyclopedic" takes a backseat to readability. Are there any reasons commas are preferred other than these two? --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't see what makes line breaks more readable than commas; they about even out in my eyes. The main problem with line breaks is that if you have a long infobox it makes the rest of the article hard to read. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true but genre is not the only field that contributes to a lengthy infobox. Band Members, labels, for instance, are usually listed with line breaks, so a band with many members is going to have a longer infobox than common infoboxes with multiple genres. --neon white talk 01:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been a long time practice to only list the current members and to add a link the the article's band member section to cover off the overkill "past member" field. It can cut the length of the box down tremendously. If the band is no longer active and the only field to be poulated is the 'past member' field it works very well. Most bands with detailed member lists usually have a separate article. This page link is also used the cut the member field down to a short list. See: Yes for a good example. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not very fond of that. As Wesley's proposal states, it's redundant to link to a section within the article from the infobox because we already have a table of contents. In a situation where the "past members" field would cause the infobox to be annoyingly long, I say just don't use the field. Let the table of contents do its job and just take "past members" out of the infobox altogether in that situation.
 * As for the commas vs. line breaks thing, the only field I usually see line breaks used in as the preferred delimiter are the members fields. This is probably because these fields are presented as separate boxes within the infobox, with their own banners, and so they lend themselves more to line break-separated lists. The other fields appear in the same box as indented mini-paragraphs, which is why they lend themselves more to commas. Another problem with using line breaks for genres is that we treat each field as the start of a sentence (which is why the first genre is usually capitalized but not the others), so using line breaks makes it look like each line is a separate sentence and should be capitalized, when in fact genres are not proper nouns and normally shouldn't be capitalized. To sum up, I like line breaks in the members sections and commas in the other fields. Those are just my thoughts. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, the whole point n purpose to keeping the stupid genre field was because readers supposedly tend to look in the infobox first for quick info rather than actually read the article. So if there is a section link to a member section... it is going to be seen and used first in the infobox rather than somewhere down in the TOC. I have been editing hear over 4 years and I can't remember the last time I even looked closely at a TOC with the intent to read an article. The only time I look at them is when I am checking for wp:moshead correctness. 99% of the time I keep them hidden because they just get in the way. Most people speed reading through an article are more apt to just put their scroll mouse into high gear rather than surf the TOC. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but that's because you and I, as experienced Wikipedians, know how to find what we're looking for quickly & without bothering to look at a TOC. TOCs do have a purpose, though, and I think most readers use them. Linking to sections from within the infobox is essentially making it the Department of Redundancy Department. It's a summary; if you can't summarize it (like if a members list is incredibly long), just leave it out. It's the same rationale (per Wesley's proposal) for not just putting "see genre section" in the genre field...if you can't summarize it, just leave it out. Anyway, I think we're getting off-point...do we like commas in the genre field or line breaks? It seems that, barring technical issues, we're leaning towards commas. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I like line breaks because it's easier to read the infobox in a list format (especially if there are citations) and it's consistent with other infoboxes. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Would WesleyDodds bother to answer my comments directly? Especially when it comes to my most serious concerns, namely:

(1) 4 genres won't be enough for artists like Miles Davis, Stanley Clarke or Marcus Miller.

(2) There are compilation or experimental albums that can span over several genres - thus 2 genres are not enough for albums. For songs, some are experimental crossovers, so at least two genres should be allowed. Like, is Baby Boy (Beyonce Song) a cont.R&B song or a dancehall song?

(3) disagree with "In the case of compilation albums that contain music by more than one artist or group, no genre should be listed in the infobox." Most VA compilations are genre-based compilations that can be easily filed under a single genre Netrat (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can answer those comments on your talk page. However, I did state repeatedly that comments about the guidelines themselves should wait until I finished the draft (however, we've been making some good progress with the whole "breaks vs. commas" issue, so I'd like to see that continue). Once again, I'm looking for feedback on the readability of the guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)