Template talk:Infobox music genre

Popularity

"major popularity" must be removed. It is disputable, POV, and depends of time moment. mikka (t) 2 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

I agree. --Jones5 15:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Five or six years later, I also agree. "Mainstream popularity"? That's subject to infinite interpretations and is just a magnet for unverifiable peacockery. Do we expect editors to ever write, "Not very popular"? The absence of guidelines for usage makes it even worse, but the concept of shoehorning popularity into an infobox is fundamentally flawed. AtticusX (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Another reason to delete this parameter, apart from the inherent subjectivity of popularity, is that infobox fields are supposed to be reserved for concise, easily sum-uppable data about the subject. An infobox's brevity is inadequate to synopsize anything's popularity. AtticusX (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Genre

What exactly are the differences between "derivative genres", "subgenres" and "fusion genres"? --Circeus 04:05, January 2 2006

subgenres are styles of a genre that have become notable enough to have been called a new name in their specific scenes, i.e., heavy metal music > thrash metal, black metal, death metal, etc

derivative genres are styles of music that are related to the parent genre musicologically but are considered seperate or developed enough to be considered parent genres, i.e., rock music > heavy metal music, punk rock, etc

fusion genres are subgenres that fuse the parent genre with other distinct genres/subgenres, i.e., industrial music > industrial metal, industrial rock --MilkMiruku 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

optionality

Needs to be made so that fields are optional, and not shown if they're not entered.--Urthogie 15:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Did that already with hiddenstructure. how/where does it not work? Circeus 16:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

On rapcore.--Urthogie 21:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Solution is that all variables MUST be listed,with those unused left empty (also makes the job easier if said variables need to be filled later.)Circeus 21:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks!--Urthogie 21:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

move 'Derivative forms:' down a bit?

might it be an idea to move the 'Derivative forms:' section down to below 'Fusion genres'? i feel subgenres and fusion genres are more notable in relation to a genre article than derivative forms. also, would a better wording not be "Derivative styles:"? --MilkMiruku 20:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding a Tnavbar?

Could we add a view/talk/edit option to the infobox?

<center>{{Tnavbar|{{PAGENAME}}}}</center>

So that we have this on each one:

{{Tnavbar|{{PAGENAME}}}}

I just think it would make things a lot easier, and it makes it much easier than just editing every template that uses the format individually. 66.229.182.113 10:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

Image syntax should be added. It doesn't need to be included in every article, but can be helpful in some where an artist's image is as relevant to the genre as the music. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Polish interwiki

{{editprotected}} Can someone add Polish interwiki to the template? [[pl:Szablon:Gatunek muzyki infobox]] Thanks. Hołek ҉ 12:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider adding interwikis on the Polish page as well? SalaSkan 18:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I just forgot about that. ;) Consider it done. Hołek ҉ 11:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ck lostsword•T•C 19:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics or Style Elements

I suggest adding a field for one of these:

Characteristics =

Musical Features =

Elements of Style =

This could be used to identify specific features of a music genre, such as in jazz or blues the use of swingtime, or in different types of dance music, examples of the common BPM for different, etc... The field should be general enough for any style elements to be included. Probably best if the text shows up small, since it might include multiple elements in a list. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you want? How should the change be coded? You may want to ask at Wikipedia:Requested templates to find someone to write and test the code for this change. --ais523 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's a good idea. I'll come up with something more defined and then re-post here with the suggested change in detail. For now I'm removing the editprotected tag. When I have the specifics ready, I'll re-post here and add the tag again. Thanks for the reply. --Parzival418 _Hello 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Visual Presentation

I find that this box doesn't play well with the HTML on some pages, for example the Death Metal page looks wrong when the page is too wide: this box overlaps boxes lower down on the page. I'd fix it but I don't know how.

Recommended colors, if any

Do the colors (color and bgcolor elements) signify anything? I don't see any rules anywhere, and I'm trying to figure out a recent undiscussed change.[1] / edg ☺ ★ 15:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... doesn't look like there are any rules or guidelines for the colours. People have probably just been using whatever might look appropiate for the genre. Should we make a list of genres that use this infobox and the colours currently used by each? Yep, sounds like a good start to organizing something; I'll check them out. --Geniac 19:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours. --Geniac 19:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Parameters

{{editprotected}}

On House music you notice how using {{{cultural_origins}}} instead of {{{cultural_origins|}}} has resulted in a meaningless parameter to be shown. This should be fixed. (Also, it would be a good idea to change {{{stylistic_origins}}} to {{{stylistic_origins|}}}) huji—TALK 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Code added to display parts of table optionally, but still display parameter names in template space for documentation. Gimmetrow 03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible Creators

I propose 'Possible Creators' section, as every single genre has certain people at its roots and it is useful to find them in infobox -- Werwerwer11 (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be an original research field. Wikipedia already has too much OR already. Peter Fleet (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed redesign...

See {{User:The Obento Musubi/Sandbox}} for the source code.

to be frank, i think it's a little bit information overkill. lots of this could go in a navbar template and/or the lead of the article. possibly a personal taste thing, but i like compact infoboxes that contain just the basics. --Kaini (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add any parameters... This is the exact same template, just redesigned a little. obentomusubi 02:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ Kaini, I like compactness and simplicity, and I don't like the inflated header banners. I also don't like the small text; there's just too much text to shrink it all & expect it not to annoy people. Also for some reason it doesn't show any of the "other topics", and it puts "view/edit" buttons at the bottom that really shouldn't be there. I also don't particularly like how this was implemented without any support in this discussion. You could've notified WikiProject Music about your proposal to draw more attention to the discussion & get more feedback. I think just going for it on the basis of WP:BOLD was a bad move. You're an old hand, OM, you know where to go to get more opinions & build consensus. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Per the various discussions I've had with The Obento Musubi, I've removed the various overrides to the template styling. The {{infobox}} defaults were chosen after discussion and are widely used across the project - there is no support for arbitrarily overriding the padding or other elements. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not good with this kind of technical stuff but whatever you did took away all of the colored topic banners within the infobox, so I reverted it. Is there a way to undo the offending overrides without turning this into just a standard infobox? The colored banners, etc. were installed to make this a topic-specific box (and are used widely in most other topic-specific infoboxes ie. albums, artists). And could you both discuss your proposed changes here, on the talk page, instead of wherever else you're having these "various discussions"? This template is used in hundreds of articles, so changes ought to be discussed. Heck, it says it's permanently protected yet it's not...I was able to revert it just now. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, oops. As much as I dislike this idea that WikiProjects should decorate their infoboxes with different pretty baubles to make them stand out, removing the colour stripes was an oversight. Replacement code is now in the sandbox for testing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

less extreme makeover

So I've updated the sandbox to do less overriding of the default infobox styling while still keeping some of the stylistic quirks which keep this from being, in Illazilla's words, "a plain-jane" infobox. Comparison is at the new test cases page. If there are no complaints I'll request sync. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the rationale for going from regular text to small text? Most other infoboxes don't do that. If it's merely to reduce the final size of the box, then I think that purpose might be better accomplished by discussing if any of the fields should maybe be cut. I don't think small text just for the sake of size reduction is the best idea (keeping in mind that some readers have vision issues). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "most other infoboxes" do indeed do so (although one's mileage may vary depending on what part of Wikipedia one spends most time on), as it's the default for the {{infobox}} base class. The reason that particular font size was chosen is because 88% is the largest size which displays identically in both Firefox and Internet Explorer - any larger size means significant changes in the metrics between the two most common browsers. I'm keen to avoid accessibility issues with too-small text, but I feel that the {{infobox}} default is still acceptable here and has been well-tested. Reducing the final size of the box can easily be accomplished by removing some of the random embellishments such as the per-row borders, but I'd rather not shake the boat too much here for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. I'm thinking mainly of other music-related tinfoboxes such as Infobox Musical artist, Infobox Album, and Infobox Single. I use IE, and for me the text in each of those is the same size as the current one in this infobox, not smaller like the text in your new version. I like the bolded field names, though. That resembles the format in those other boxes. I think we should aim for consistency amongst music-related boxes. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't currently consistency across the various music boxes anyway - {{infobox musical instrument}} uses the {{infobox}} defaults; {{infobox Musical artist}} uses font-size: 0.9em, which on Firefox displays at the smaller size; {{infobox Music genre}} uses 95%; {{infobox Album}} and {{infobox Single}} use 100%. If we're going to standardise, we should try to standardise on the same defaults used elsewhere on the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not advocating one over the other necessarily, though if I was to choose one I think I'd just go with the {{infobox}} defaults. I just think it might be worth bringing up at the Music project that these various infoboxes have inconsistent font sizes, and maybe we can aim for them all having the same. I think I'll post a note on the project talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Update

The WikiProject posting Illazilla refers to above has gone unanswered (and is now archived). As such, I'm planning on rolling out the proposed changes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Two fields

Why are there fields for "local scenes" and "regional scenes"? You only need one. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ref to WikiProject Music genres

{{editprotected}} Can we please remove the reference to the defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres? Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I see no such reference in this template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's in the documentation Template:Infobox Music genre/doc, which is not protected. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Colors

Could we please pick a color for this infobox and make it standard, rather than allowing editors to set the colors to whatever they please? Most other topic-specific infoboxes have a set colors in order to standardize the look of those topic article across Wikipedia. Template:Infobox Musical artist, for example, has set colors with specific meanings. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours seems to give no particular meanings to the colors (and the page is deprecated anyway). I've been having a problem at the emo article with an editor who thinks it should be pink or purple or whatever other random color he feels like at the moment, when it seems like rock genres ought to be crimson (and nearly every rock genre article I've seen uses crimson). Could we just pick a single color for genre infoboxes and lock it in, removing the option for editors to set it? Alternatively, we could create a list of 6 or so overarching genres (Classical, Rock, Jazz, Hip-Hop, Electronic, Country, etc.) and set corresponding colors for those (similar to how Template:Infobox Album#Type works). In any case, the current usage leads to inconsistency across music articles and doesn't look good at all. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather the colour was just removed entirely. It's never going to be anything other than arbitrary, so there's little reason to distract readers with large bands of it in the infobox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add my opinion to the discussion. I've been editing a few articles about different types of music and have noticed that this infobox color is in mess in those articles. I can provide examples: snap music is a subgenre of hip hop music, that is explicitly stated in the article with the citation. However the color of infobox is white in the article, and the color of infobox in hip hop music article is dark-blue. Why? (1) Exactly the same situation is with funk music article and nu-funk (2), soul music and northern soul (3), soul music and brown-eyed soul (4), soul music and smooth soul (5), reggae music and dub music (6), hip hop music and baltimore club (7), hip hop music and hyphy (8), dance punk and nu rave (9), disco and space disco (10), disco and italo disco (11), disco and hi-nrg (12) and so on.

Another issue is fusion genres. As fusion genre article reveals (though poor article with bad to none sources) fusion genre is a combination of some genres of music, that could even be unrelated (like, R&B punk). So, what should the color of infobox in those articles be (red as in punk rock or dark-blue as in contemporary R&B)? In some cases, the color of infobox had caused small edit conflicts, like here: ("what should the colour of infobox in 'smooth jazz' article be like?"). Such situations, when users argue over infobox colours make damage to Wikipedia, as they drift attention away from the topic of article.

I'd like to make two possible solutions for the issue:

• to remove the parameter of colour from this infobox
• to forbid using this template in articles about sub-genres. This solution will also draw a brighter diffenre between various music genres and their sub-genres, as some editors don't seem to understand the difference (as far as I have been editing articles of such kind, an exact reference to if the type of music is a genre or a sub-genre of some other genre can easily be found in most cases. For all other cases, when it is unclear from sources whether the type of music is a genre or a sub-genre of some other genre both points of view can be presented, as in crunk music). -- Appletangerine un (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sync with sandbox

{{editprotected}} While we've been having this discussion, {{infobox single}} and {{infobox album}} have moved to use the same basic styling (in particular font metrics) as the proposed sandbox here. Requesting sync to catch up with them, as this currently isn't in dispute. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Y Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Style, again

So the music project has pretty much stabilised on using the {{infobox}} default styling over the last year or so. This template still uses weird bottom borders on all of its rows. I think it's time to get rid of them. Code is in the sandbox, comparison is on the test cases page. If there's no objection I'll request a sync. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Requesting sync with sandbox as this doesn't seem controversial any more. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Derivative forms

Can anyone clearly explain what that field is meant to be filled with and to make that explanation a standart rule. The term derivative form isn't, AFAIK, widely used if even it is used somewhere. So I want this to be explained. If it should be used for sub genres that "shifted" away from their parental genre a bit more than others, then it is useless, as no source would measure that imaginable "distance" and that field will only serve to start POV wars. If it should be used for the separate genres of music that evolved from an initial genre, then there are probably no cases to use, as all new genres to the moment are of fusional origin and have no single parental genre they had evolved from - in this case using this field will cause only POV wars once again, as one can hardly distinguish what genre was "basic" in formation of a new genre and what genres were only "influences". -- Appletangerine un (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Add an image

Simples. Add this below the headerstyle line:

| image       = {{{image|}}}
| caption     = {{{caption|}}}

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit weary on this. Do we really want to capture something as vague as a genre in a single image ? Won't that become a bit original research ? It might just be better to have a few images throughout the article. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TheDJ. How would you capture an abstract concept like a musical genre in a single image? For example, what single image would you choose to represent punk rock in the article's infobox? --IllaZilla (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Support for an image does not make the use of an image mandatory. Ideally, we should be including illustrative images in the ledes of articles where we can, and if present this change would allow them to be incorporated into the infobox nicely. Right now most of the genre articles have a dearth of images (not one image on soul music?), so I don't see there being any warring over which image to have. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Re-enabling. An optional image shouldn't be controversial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it was controversial clearly. And I realise the other two editors didn't return to the conversation but there is not consensus for this edit yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki add, please~

Korean interwiki(ko:틀:음악 장르 정보) is ruled out.

Interwiki add, please~ --Idh0854 (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox music subgenre

The only difference between Template:Infobox music subgenre and this template is the addition of a notable artists parameter. Would anyone be against adding this parameter to this genre template? Or perhaps it's not needed at all. I don't know : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed. Too open to either POV or infobox bloat. It only appears to be used in 3 articles, so I say delete it & replace with this infobox in those usages. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, I agree. I'll replace the infoboxes. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition of a genre

I'm not sure where I should be asking or posting this, but assume this talk-page may be watched by many with extensive experience in defining music genres. In regards to a question I've posted at Talk:Bangla rock#Article concerns, I would appreciate further opinions, suggestions, or adjustments by others whom are more familiar with genre-related policy and procedure. Thank you.  -- WikHead (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)