From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Visual arts (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Literature (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

can we please change "category of composition" in first sentence[edit]

I entirely get why the phrasing, "category of composition" was used for genre. It is general enough to cover everything that is capable of falling into a genre-classification. Supposedly it includes all utterances, sounds, styles of painting, etc.

My problem, however is that it is not clear (a first time reader will not immediately discern the meaning of the word, "genre") because too much is being implied by this phrasing. My other problem is that it is too general. By invoking the concept of composition it includes examples that have nothing to do with a genre. For example, I can compose myself before a big, board room meeting but I would never say that the way in which I composed myself fell into a group of similar composition types, thereby composing a, "genre." Surely there can not be a "genre" for ways in which we compose ourselves before meetings.

Furthermore, a "category of composition" is too narrow. For example, some genre group together not according to how they are composed but potentially by how they are listened to (music: example being instrumental-jazz listened to in elevators), or the ritual of how they are read (literature: example being weekend-romance-novels read commonly at the beach or cottage). These consumption rituals have nothing to do with the mode of composition. Indeed, in these two examples the genre is defined by an action totally independent of the artist responsible for composing the work of art in question. Thus, "category of composition" is both too general and too narrow.

I propose we replace it with either: (1) artistic style or, (2) cateogry of art or, (3) artistic form

I have no idea why we (the editors of this page) are afraid to attribute the concept of art to the concept of genre. They were born for each other. Furthermore, type: "define: genre" into google and you'll get a good sense of the consensus on this definition. Please engage me in this here (discussion), before we make a change to this article. Thanks. --Skychildandsonofthesun (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

suggested additons[edit]

Should space western be added as a subgenre of science fiction and science fiction western be added as a subgenre of western? Web wonder (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, in music genre's there is 10 different sub genres of elecronica but not even a mention of country music. I know where i live there are 4 country music stations and as far as i know, no electronica stations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi, this article isn't serius. It need biblography and more reference about genres. Like Mikhail Bakhtin, Amy J. Devitt, Tzvetan Todorov, etc. I could do that but I afraid that all my changes will be erase. -- 03:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

and Northrop Frye --Jahsonic 08:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Be bold[edit]

Edit it.

It does need work. Don't be afraid of your changes being erased. If they need proofreading or whatever, that can be arranged. Be bold. This is Wikipedia! Paul Haymon 01:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I started on editing it and after two or three paragraphs lost heart. I knew it was a poorly written article but did not appreciate how truly bad it was until I started trying to fix it. Gingermint (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

proposal for reformating the article:[edit]

  • Separate genres by literary genres (a literary genre is a genre but not all genres are literary genres). Talk about a discursives genres (bakhtin).
  • Explain a first definition like a category or taxonomy (aristotelian proposal) of something...
  • Examples of genres:
  • E-mail, memorandum,news articles, thesis, article encyclopedical etc... (see Devit)
  • Examples of literary genres:
    • Novel, poetry, etc..

-- 16:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Scope of article[edit]

In fact, this subject is far more complex than is suggested by the current article. There are multiple uses and definitions of genre (e.g. consider genre works). this will require, not only considerable expansion, but a real embracing of the many meaning of the term. In other words, I don't believe this is merely an article, but more a project. Pinkville 23:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't webcomics be inside Comic?[edit]

Isn't webcomics a subgenre of comics? I mean, I KNOW webcomics deserve their own page as they are that broad in scope, but I think it is important to realize that they are part of the normal comic genre as well. Can anyone herlp here Corrupt one 00:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Comics are a medium, not a genre. (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[edit]

"Like any entertainment medium, the story lines represent most major genres of fiction."

SUCH AZ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Deleted redundant text in Age Literature Section 14:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Age catigories?[edit]

I noticed that there was a divison mentioned that used age catigories as the way of deviding works. I wonder, can ANY method of dividing up works into organization be allowed? If so, then the dewy decimal system will have to be added. Corrupt one (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Article is unsalvageable[edit]

This article needs a complete rewrite. The vast majority of it consists of uncited, unfootnoted, original-research claims and personal analysis in a laundry list that contains such outrageously elementary errors and misunderstanding of literary form and conventions that it cannot be fixed with band-aid editing. I certainly cannot do such an overhaul on my own, nor should I in this collaborative undertaking. I want this to be a call to all interested editors to begin a discussion on what we can to create a proper article for an incredibly important topic.

Genre is one of the foundation elements for understanding literature and art. We cannot give a topic of such importance less than a fully educated, informed and copiously researched, referenced and footnoted article.

For the moment, we may well want to give it an intro only and direct readers to literary genre and other similar, much more encyclopedic entries. -- Tenebrae (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Massive Overhaul[edit]

In the interest of being bold, we are undertaking the revision of this Wikipedia page as a final class project. Our class has eaten, breathed and lived genre for the past 15 weeks. As such, we would greatly enjoy the opportunity to address many of the comments on this talk page to the aid of all those who visit the “Genre” Wikipedia page. We invite collaboration. We think this page needs several additional citations, and we would like to include some information about current and past genre scholars as well as information about the theory of genre. Mattymunson (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

- We will be focusing on elaborating on the concept of genre, rather than Genre studies, more specific fields of genre (i.e. Film, Music, Literature), or complex lists (i.e. Literary Genres, Music Genres, Film Genres), since those already exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanguination (talkcontribs) 00:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Great news. This article is a mess and really needs to be improved. - SimonP (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
God, yes. See my comments in the section above. My only request: Read The Five Pillars of Wikipedia for a basic grounding in WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in particular. I, for one, am glad to have you aboard! --Tenebrae (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Some nice, more Wikipedia-like work in the last day or two. Bravo to the newbies! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We wanted to give a heads up that we've created a new page for "List of Genres" and so we are working on deleting the current list in the Genre article, as it is redundant.Mattymunson (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Couple of things: At the appropriate spot in the article put a "main article" link to List of Genres. The code is {{main | name of new article here}} (with the "nowiki" tags removed, of course).
Second, we cannot say "Notable Contributors" -- that's inherently POV. What you may consider notable, others may not. Neutral point of view, as Wikipedia defines it, is one of the single biggest tenets of this encyclopedia. So is No original research, which includes no original syntheses of various points of view. All we can do is give the raw information and let readers draw any conclusions themselves, without our prompting. This article does not do that.
It needs to be fixed. If you don't correct these vios, other editors will. Better that you do it, since you're familiar with the topic, and other editors, for the most part, will be going in to correct policy violations and may remove content you feel is important. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
In fact, I see another editor has already tagged the History section. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Tenebrae, you put the finger on a sore spot--synthesis is indeed the problem here, as is reliance on critics who, while valuable as critics, do not provide what one might call NPOV criticism of either the concept or its earlier theorists. There is no need for a Wikipedia article to reread Plato through a structuralist's eyes--if anything, such a critique, if it has validity as established by secondary or even tertiary sources, can come in a different section, but using Genette (in this case) to present Plato is not the proper way for an encyclopedic article. I'm not going to mess with this article anymore, though I will check on occasion to see if it still reads like an essay, and will reinstate that tag if I feel it is unjustly removed. Look at the "Antecedent genres" section, for instance--that's a summary of what one critic has to say on a matter, not a particularly notable critic, and while perfectly appropriate in an essay it has no place here (the same goes for the image on an ecosystem--?). Happy editing to the contributors, and I hope they will take your advice given above to heart. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks — I very much appreciate having another veteran editor keeping an eye on those well-meaning and knowledgeable students, who just have to get better grounded in what Wikipedia is and isn't. Hope you don't mind if I give you a holler if I need help1 With great regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

More Headings & Emphasis on Theorists[edit]

I personally think we should include each contributing theorists name with a heading under the contemporary genre section and include what they personally contributed to genre. I know previously there were issues with overlapping information between the concepts section and theorists section, but while the concepts are important, there needs to be more emphasis on the theorists as individuals and how each betters the understanding of genre as a whole.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanguination (talkcontribs)

I think you should consider what the job is of an encyclopedic article: it is not to list every single thing in the world. Adding subsections on what every single theorist has had to say is an impossible proposition, and would create a ridiculously long article which would be impossible to navigate--the article is already barely legible. BTW, this isn't an essay; please refrain from MLA-style parenthetic citations and see WP:CITE for our guidelines. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Concur. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


I applaud the efforts of the class that took this on a project. I would ask that they convert their footnoting to the linked style described at WP:FOOTNOTES. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Did any of that ever happen? I'm not seeing a plethora of footnotes. Gingermint (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Essay With Unsubstantiated Opinions[edit]

As of this writing the article has much in it resembling an opinion piece. It is also very clumsy. Though not a complete waste of bandwidth (and it does have good moments) it could really use a solid editing. I got two paragraphs in, lost heart and now feel a little depressed. Gingermint (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

And, let me just add, essay seems to be the one genre left out of the discussion here. That is, for those of us who believe in four genres: narrative, poetry, theatre and essay.Godofredo29 (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Barrie relevance?[edit]

Why exactly does this article include an image of and mention J.M. Barrie if not only to bulk out the amount of images used? What is Barrie's relevance besides his little caption? Can we not go into more detail on this? --Editor510 drop us a line, mate 01:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

List of genres contains quite good quality material, but it is so much material on such a diverse set of topics, with so much overlap with topic specific articles and lists, that I don't think it is most optimal that all this diverse material is in one list article. Having said that I am not sure how to propose a way forward. An example could be:

  1. List of genres is redirected to Genre.
  2. That most of the material in List of genres is merged to various pages. Candidates for example are:

For now I will put the merger templates on List of genres and Genre. I do not know whether that is sufficient, because my proposal potentially involves multiple pages and I do not know how such procedure should work. This could be found out later in case there is sufficient support for the proposal. LazyStarryNights (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, #1 doesn't make sense. There are different articles because they are very different. One is a description of what a genre is, and the other is a list of the various genres. Number 2 makes more sense -- as long as it's done right. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)