Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Archive 6

Proposed deletion of Bop rock and Bop metal


The articles Bop rock and Bop metal have been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Appear to be neologisms. No sources, and nothing that isn't already covered in Jazz fusion (or the Jazz-rock section therein). These could each be turned into redirects to that article, except that the terms aren't really used in any notable context.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the articles to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gyrofrog (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

System of a Down genre
Discussion is required to meet citations on System of a Down are strong enough to have the group be considered part of the prog rock genre. Discussion is here Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Eagles
Discussion at Talk:Eagles (band). Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

List of bands for a genre
Hello people, CombatMarshmallow has been making changes to many rock music genre articles (starting I think with metalcore), removing links to the list of bands for the respective genre from the "other topics" section of an article's infobox and moving them to the "see also" section of an article's text when they weren't already there. I see no downside to including the link in both the infobox and the text, but CombatMarshmallow's central argument is that "a list isn't a topic", and I'm not really sure what that means. The reason I dislike this is because those lists used to be firmly established as a part of genre infoboxes (even in featured articles such as punk rock and heavy metal music) before CombatMarshmallow came in. Do you agree with these changes?-- MA SHAUN IX 11:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Heavy metal infoboxes and navboxes
I was told I should leave a notice here about a discussion I started concerning the theme colors of heavy metal subgenre infoboxes and navboxes. — Confession0791 talk 21:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

More Than a Woman (Aaliyah song)
Input requested here: Talk:More_Than_a_Woman_(Aaliyah_song) --Neil N  talk to me 02:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Genre instruction consistency between various music-related infoboxes
Hi there! I'm of the opinion that since genre-warring is so prolific, it might be beneficial to the project to update the various music infoboxes with specific instructions for how genre additions should be treated so that there is uniformity between them, and so that other editors who don't spend much time editing music articles can more effectively help the genre task force deal with genre warring. I know that Template:Infobox musical artist and Template:Infobox album have different instructions, as does Template:Infobox single and there isn't anything at MOS:MUSIC that explains how to treat genre. I am proposing that at the very least, there should be consistent instructions at the various infoboxes along the lines of:
 * genre The one or more music genres that the album reflects, delimited by a comma should be listed here. Genres should be linked (piped linked where needed), for example, "Rock, pop" should link to rock music and pop music respectively. Note that most genres aren't proper nouns, and shouldn't be capitalized, but the first word in the list should be. Please use umbrella genres (rock, pop, hip-hop, dance) and avoid sub-genre (screamo, noise, shoegaze, post-anarcho-steam-punk-in-a-pear-tree-pop). Genre should be limited to 2-4 examples. All examples must be supported with references.

Requiring references is the easiest way to get others to help manage the problems, and has been helpful at Template:Infobox television. I stole some of the above text from Template:Infobox album, and combined it with some elements of Template:Infobox musical artist. The latter template says that genres do not need to be sourced in the infobox if they are sourced in the article, but I would encourage that to change, since nobody has time to chase references all around the article.

Tangential to this, is anyone aware of user Alanaxl182? I noticed today that he was adding genres without sources mostly, changing genres without explanation, removing sourced genres, using subgenres, and marking everything as minor. I'm sure he's just innocently overzealous, but just in case that behavior sounds familiar, heads-up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes! Let's require genres to be referenced in the infobox as well as in the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that instructions on how to treat genres in infoboxes should be unified (Template:Infobox music festival should be included in this as well), but I do not agree that it should be compulsory to source genres directly in the infobox (so long as they are sourced in the text), in the same way that general info provided in the lead section and based in the article does not have to be sourced directly. Genres are usually sourced in a specific section of an article ("musical style" or something like that) and it isn't very hard to find the references there. Nevertheless, it's not a problem to duplicate genre references in the infobox when genre warring is affecting it, though such a situation should also be treated using a hidden comment ( etc.). I would like to note that genres should preferably NOT be sourced ONLY in the infobox, as that takes focus away from details on an artist's style and who, when and why considered it to fall within a specific genre.


 * Furthermore, I disagree with your emphasis on avoiding subgenres in infoboxes, especially considering the examples you gave. Noise is actually a major genre and not a subgenre, while screamo is a completely valid genre to include in the infobox of a band such as Orchid (screamo band). In my opinion, aiming for generality is important in the case of artists with very diverse output (there is a good reason for why the Beatles' infobox only includes rock and pop), but when an artist stays within the boundaries of a few subgenres (which is the case of many more recent artists), it is perfectly fine to include these subgenres in the relevant infoboxes. In other words, the generality of genres included in the infobox should, in my opinion, be treated on a case to case basis, NOT given as a guideline; this is the current approach, and it should be maintained.-- MA SHAUN IX 19:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree with Mashaunix here. While I often find myself reverting unsourced genre changes (or the removal of sourced genres), I'm not really in agreement with such a change. First of all, even with rules to only list the most general of genres, it's not going to be easy to enforce. Something like that should be left to local consensus, rather than a project-wide guideline. As an example, Mashaunix makes a good point about the Beatles, since they have touched upon many sub-genres of rock and pop. Likewise, Queen has also touched upon many sub-genres of rock, hence to consensus to only list "rock" there. However, with a band like Red Hot Chili Peppers, they don't do much beyond funk rock and alternative rock, so it should be appropriate to list those sub-genres there, rather than just "rock" and "funk". In most cases, I feel that it's more helpful to list a few more specific sub-genres, rather a broad genre. With the 2-4 genre recommendation already in place, that should be fine. I mean, why change that?


 * Also, no need to have references in the infobox, when it's already in the article body. If you want to find the genre in question referenced within the article, you could always just do Ctrl+F, then search the name of the genre. Per WP:INFOBOXREF, it's recommended to have contents from the infobox cited in just the article body anyway. Things can probably be cited in both the infobox and article body when genres are a particular problem in the article in question, but that's it. Kokoro20 (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally believe in umbrella genres but is better to add sub-genres with at least 4-5 sources backing them in my opinion. If we don't considerate that the infobox would be a mess. A maximum of 4 genres in the infobox is right for me. What do you think? Anonpediann (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we should now move to unite Template:Infobox musical artist, Template:Infobox album, Template:Infobox single, Template:Infobox song, Template:Infobox music festival and Template:Infobox record label in their instructions. In my opinion, they should be based in Template:Infobox musical artist, but I propose that we should add that it is fine to use less general (sub)genres when they can be limited to 2–4, and that the generality of genres included should be treated on a case-to-case basis. For example, I think it's fine to include East Coast hip hop in the infobox of a seminal album for the subgenre, such as Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers). Right now, not all infoboxes aim for generality, and I think we shouldn't force that to change.-- MA SHAUN IX 17:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If no one is opposed to this, I will, on Friday, propose the unification on the talk pages of those templates, as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, Portal talk:Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Record Labels, Wikipedia talk:Genre warrior and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music, as well as the talk pages of specific users that I think might want to have their say on this, redirecting all users to discuss the issue here. If I'm forgetting a template that features genres or a location that should be notified, tell me.-- MA SHAUN IX 17:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I am kind of opposed to it. I would keep the 2-4 genres thing a simple recommendation like it is currently, (whether they are general genres or sub-genres) rather than an actual rule, and have it treated as a case-by-case basis. Although, I would have some wording about sub-genres added as well. Maybe like explain that sub-genres are allowed, but general genres can also be used instead, depending on the case and local consensus. How genres should be cited by sources is already pretty sufficiently explained, if you ask me. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Template:Infobox musical artist says "preferably use 2-4", and I think that's fine (it is a recommendation, not a rule). As for the other point, I suggest we change the text to something along the lines this (text I changed is in italics):

genre

"The genre or genres of music performed by the act [or "on the album/song", or "at the festival", or "on the label's releases"), preferably limited to 2-4. When more (sub)genres could be applied, aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than East Coast hip hop); otherwise, aiming for generality isn't necessary, and this should be treated on a case-to-case basis. Genres should be separated by using commas or . Genres should be wikilinked. Use piped links where needed, for example: Pop, rock. Note: most genres are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. However, the first word in a list of multiple genres should be capitalized. Genres that are sourced in the article itself do not require a source in the infobox, but sometimes it can be useful to have the source listed again anyway, to help prevent edit warring''; this can also be done using hidden comments, e.g..


 * Feel free to reject any of this and/or propose other changes.-- MA SHAUN IX 22:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I would change the word "more" to "many", to be consistent with the recommendation nature of the 2-4 genres. Rather than simply suggesting to aim for generality, I would add the word "consider" before that. Genre debates sometimes happen even with sources, so it could also be noted that if a genre listing is heavily disputed at a particular article, a local consensus should be reached (such as when debates come up over how explicitely a certain source supports a genre or whether the genre passes or fails due weight). I've seen a number of debates like these before. Kokoro20 (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Song genres under songs by artist categories?
Feel free to comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians/Categorization. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Latin music featured portal candidate
I have nominated the Latin music portal for featured portal and I would like to ask for feedback from this project. Thank you, Erick (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Musical subgenres by genre
Category:Musical subgenres by genre has been nominated for. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. CN1 (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed link
I fixed our parents category link at the bottom of the page. --Xavier (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

New member!
Hello everyone! I am super excited to be a part of this project! No bias, that is my philosophy. Genres are genres, everything else is a sub genre. The end. --Xavier (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

cfd for Category:Instrumental and vocal genres
Participate! Why should these two be put together in one category? [|Click here] CN1 (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Electro and Electro House/Electropop
It's been awhile since I've been on the Wikipedia game and I thought I'd come back because of a very significant problem - people keep mixing up electro genres because they have the word "Electro" in them. That shit drives me crazy because I mean seriously - one's an 80s genre and the other is like radio pop sounding shit. Two totally different movements that went on at different times and spawned from two totally different creatures. One evolved from disco and the other evolved from electroclash. Just thought I'd get that through with people before I join this project. How's it going everyone. :) QubixQdotta (talk)

Adding "other_names" parameter to music genre infoboxes
I've left examples at Template:Infobox music genre/testcases. Please offer comments at Template talk:Infobox music genre.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Buddy Holly and the Crickets template
I totally disagree with the edits on Buddy Holly template which have been made pretty recently by an user. We have discussed here and we definitely don't agree with it. Could someone give his opinion ? Elfast (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Viking metal FAC
I've nominated Viking metal as a featured article. Please give any input you may have on the article. Thanks, -- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 00:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC about post-progressive
I posted an RFC about the post-progressive article - see talk page. Chilton (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

K-pop
There is an ongoing discussion on whether "List of 20 most viewed K-pop music videos on YouTube" would be considered as an original research or not at Talk:K-pop and Talk:K-pop. It needs some discussion from Wikipedians who are experts on such topic. Please help to discuss if you can. Thank you so much.--TerryAlex (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

GAR notice for Rock music
Rock music, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Shearonink (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Consensus/third opinions needed at Talk:It Ain't Me
Third opinions at Talk:It Ain't Me would be appreciated regarding the song's genre. Thanks. Abi-Maria (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

AfD: SoundCloud rap
The article SoundCloud rap is being discussed for deletion. Please see Articles for deletion/SoundCloud rap to participate in the discussion. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hybrid genres wikilinked with dashes
I'm curious on how to handle sources when they state genres that we do not have article for on wikipedia that are described in sources as "Trap-pop" or "Disco-pop" or something. We do not have articles for them, but I have seen them linked as "Trap-pop". I've been in a discussion with users, , and on it and its debate suggests it should be handled elsewhere outside one or two pages. Personally, I do not combine them like my latter example per WP:STICKTOSOURCE which states that "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." I feel that by linking individual genres it gives the wrong impression of how a genre is described. For example, linking Classical pop goes nowhere, but linking Classical-pop seems to be misleading users. I've searched other rules and archives of this site with no real consensus. Anyone found any rules that contradict this? If not, should we just go with the implications from WP:STICKTOSOURCE? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering they don't exist, they should better be changed into "Trap • pop", "disco • pop", etc. (with the hlist template). It doesn't change anything at all and still respects WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't do that because its not what the authors states. That would be like changing "Pop punk" to "Pop • punk". I'm no sure how what you are suggesting follows sticktosource as it does seem to change the meaning to me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to avoid ever sourcing these hyphenated genres again unless they have Wikipedia articles, but that still leaves us with the ones currently on song articles, and the ones that will no doubt be sourced by other users in the future. If there's no article for the fusion genre, we should not be linking the two genres between the hyphen, for the same reason gave with pop punk. All I can suggest is we remove hyph-genres or unlink them, because we can't make articles for every time a music journalist uses a hyphen between two existing genres. Theo (edits) 16:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, the best thing to do is to find other sources which separately use the two genres (eg. one for "trap", one for "pop") to solve the issue. Even if some music journalists use hyphen between genres, we don't need to use such genres in articles, and most of the time we can avoid using them. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sadly, this won't work in most cases, I add genres to music articles regularly when I can find a reliable source, but most times the writer of the source will only refer definitively to one genre. A lot of sources don't make a clear statement on the genre(s). There's virtually no way I'd be able to find sources that call the "trap-pop" songs separately trap and pop, I'm afraid. As I said I will definitely not be sourcing hyphenated genres with no articles of their own again and would recommend anyone to follow suit. Theo (edits) 22:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think not including genres we find on the account of us not having a wiki article is not really a solution either. I understand its helpful to have the link, but it is not essential. I'd assume good faith in our readers that they would at least get an idea of what a song sounds like, even from a non-wikilinked genre. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "There's virtually no way I'd be able to find sources that call the "trap-pop" songs separately trap and pop" : then use sources which only describe these songs as "trap", and not "pop". It seems to be the best way to solve the issue. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's still better to have genres with an article. In most cases, you can find songs or albums associated with hybrid genres with an article sych as pop punk, dance-rock, pop-rap, etc. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying to not use genres but we shouldn't be hunting for specific genres because it is is not more convenient for us, if we find it we should not pick and choose what we think is better. If a source says it, and something like trap-pop shows up on several articles, its just probably time to find the sources to create said article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Music/Music_genres_task_force

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.&mdash; Rod talk 17:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)