Template talk:Rock music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Table too wide[edit]

This table is too wide and displays very poorly in IE6 (the table overlaps the text in the left-hand navbar. Bkonrad | Talk 16:31, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Two lists[edit]

Why are there two lists in this template? There doesn't seem to be a substantial difference in the context of each list. Should we merge them, or could someone who knows why there are two perhaps sort them appropriately? Cheers (Westius 05:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC))

i noticed this also. if nobody has any objections i think we should sort it alphabetically. danhash 04:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

cumbia rock[edit]

i removed cumbia rock; check here for more info. danhash 18:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Rock en español[edit]

I've removed this from the template as it's not really a genre so much as a linguistic category, and we can't list every language in which rock music is made. It belongs in World rock instead, as per the template of that name. ProhibitOnions 19:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a heirarchy or this template[edit]

I think it would make this template a lot more useful if there were a two or maybe three tiered division with the more notable genres towards the top and in bigger/bolder type. I know this could start a debate over just how notable each genre is and whether it deserves to be first tier or second tier or third tier or whatever, but I think it's pretty clear that some of the genres are a whole lot more notable than others. For example, I think we'd all agree that Punk rock and Heavy metal are a whole lot more notable as genres than Flamenco-rock or Raga rock (yes, I know some songs of very famous groups are considered Raga rock, but as a genre, most people haven't even heard of it!).

Anyway, having that big list with no ranking makes it hard to find the genre you're looking for at a quick glance, which is what navigation templates are designed for. So it's pretty clear to me that it needs to be sorted. I'm thinking three-tiered might be the best solution, with the biggest most well-known genres, somewhat well known ones in the middle, and a group at the bottom of genres that are mostly just of interest to a smaller sub-culture, geographical region, or to music historians. ENpeeOHvee 06:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I put together this rough draft of what the template would look like, formatted and sorted and such. As for the categorizations, I wasn't totally sure about all of them, but given pretty good general knowledge of musice, I'm pretty sure at least 75% of these are categorized right, and with the remainder it was always a debate about whether it was first or second tier, or second or third tier - (I'm pretty sure none of the third tier ones would belong in first tier and vice versa). So anyhow, let me know what you think about the formatting and everything (I'm still fairly new to designing tables like this...) ENpeeOHvee 08:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Rock and roll | Rock genres

Alternative rock | British Invasion | Christian rock | Country rock | Hard rock | Heavy metal | Power pop | Punk rock | Rockabilly | Gypsybilly | Soft rock | Southern rock |
Arena rock | Blues-rock | Boogaloo | Emo | Folk-rock | Garage rock | Girl group | Glam rock | Hardcore | Instrumental rock | Jam band | Mod | Progressive rock | Psychedelic | Surf | Symphonic rock | Yacht rock
Aboriginal rock | Anatolian rock | Art rock | Avant-rock | Cello rock | Chicano rock | Desert rock | Detroit rock | Dialect rock | Flamenco-rock | Glam metal | Heartland rock | Jangle pop | Krautrock | Madchester | Mersey sound | Piano rock | Post-rock | Pub rock (Aussie) | Pub rock (UK) | Punta rock | Raga rock | Raï rock | Rockoson | Samba-rock | Skiffle |

Bloated[edit]

This template is seriously bloated. I've never even heard of most of these. Templates like this are for assisting with navigation, not simply listing related articles. Someone should either cut down on the number of genres listed or remove it entirely and just link to List of rock genres. --Ortzinator 15:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove many of the non-notable articles. Somebody will probably revert, but it might stimulate discussion on the subject.—oac old american century talk @ 06:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Christian Rock[edit]

Does Christian Rock deserve a place on the template? After reading the article it seems that it isn't a genre like all the others, but could be any of the genres (just with Christian lyrics). Bands that have been identified as 'Christian Rock' include:

  • Petra (which is prog-rock)
  • Switchfoot (which is poppy post-grunge)
  • Relient K (which is pop-punk)
  • Sixpence None The Richer (pop rock)

Even those bands that are similar and often misidentified such a Coldplay, U2, Thrice, and Creed vary VERY widely.

It is not a genre, as bands range from punk, to pop, to hardcore, to folk. Why then is it in rock genres? Dark jedi requiem 03:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire. Genre doesn't just mean sound. It can mean theme, too (for instance, death metal has dark themes by default). I'd argue that Christian rock is a general, blanket term for a number of hybrid subgenres that marry Christian religious-themed music (remember, Gospel music is considered a genre, too) with various rock subgenres, including (as you noted) pop rock, punk rock, folk rock, etc. Thus I feel it's fine in the template. Also, it's a fairly notable one - I've known about the existance of it for so long I don't remember when I first heard about it (and I don't come from a family that listens to it, either!). I know of at least two stations in my area that cater specifically to Christian rock, so, obviously, notable, both in terms of religious culture and music. (Side note: I'm not even Christian, I'm agnostic, and tend to for the most part dislike Christian rock, so this has nothing to do with me defending a genre based on my religious preferences or musical preferences, either). 63.21.45.223 06:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Than it is a sub-sub genre instead of genre of rock. Subgenres do not get a place on this list. Since emo, which is relativily punk (Which has different themes), although popular, does not get on the list.Dark jedi requiem 16:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Discuss changes?[edit]

Is that what? one and only template you've seen? I introduced standard appearance, navigational template used all over wp. you wanna have your ugly table? fine by me. bye--132.73.80.97 10:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there are a nubmer of different tables. Second, it's not considered civl if you keep changing things without discussion, particularly a template. WesleyDodds 10:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you attempted to discuss something? didn't you revert my edits w/o a single word of explanation? --132.73.80.97 10:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Your edits were reverted by a number of people. WesleyDodds 13:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
users, wesley, users. not people. 3 to be precise, two of them ip, so I wouldn't bet that it was not you. --132.73.80.97 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor Cosmetic Changes[edit]

What do think of this? It's a template on one of my user sub-pages that has an edited copy. ''I Am The Master Of All Thunder'' (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

New Template[edit]

Don't you think we should have another rock template, with the less notable genres. I'll start work on it. ''I Am The Master Of All Thunder'' (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New section required... or moving certain items into the "Other topics" area[edit]

The current template has a few deceiving tidbits in it that should be adjusted.. specifically the prime list of genres in the template contains 4 "non-genre" entries. Arena rock, British Invasion, Canterbury Scene and Jam band are not genres but are listed incorrectly among the other "true" musical genres. These 4 terms should be moved down into the "Other topics" area of the template and leave the top section for "genres' only". Or perhaps a section separate from the 'other topics' area could be created to list these "Rock related" but "non-genre" terms. I will test view a few versions of the template and adjust accordingly. Libs (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative rock, punk rock and heavy metal[edit]

This is really a note for editors that are unfamiiar with this template. Basically all of these major subgenres have their own templates, so sub-genres of those are not usually placed on this one. Otherwise it would be much too big to manage.--SabreBD (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Radio formats[edit]

Those are hardly universal. They are all American.
Here in Canada, we have also had them shoved down our throats as well, but they are still US concepts.
I can drive from Canada to the US, switch radio stations, and hear the same song list on the same day being played by stations owned by the same US corporation.
When I am in Mexico, I do not hear this crass compartmentalization on their radio.
Varlaam (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

When you confront the programme director and DJs at your local Canadian radio station with the fact that they are working from an American playlist, first of all, they deny it. Then, when they finally acknowledge it, they say, "Whaddaya want us to do about it, eh?"
Varlaam (talk)
I see no reason to label the radio format list as US-only. Nothing in the template says the formats are universal (global). Nothing says they are exclusively American. They simply are radio formats. Most (if not all) happened to form in the United States, but most are also used outside the United States. If/when a more "Canadian" (or German, or Japanese, or Brazilian, or... etc.) playlist/format article presents itself, then add it.
Category:Active rock radio stations in Canada (65 stations)
Category:Active rock radio stations in Australia
Category:Classic rock radio stations in Canada
Category:Classic rock radio stations in the United Kingdom
Category:Modern rock radio stations in Canada
 Levdr1lostpassword  (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Change of colour[edit]

In respect of the recent clean up: is there a guideline that says that navboxes cannot be colour coded as they have been for years? I seem to remember a discussion about this and the problem of letter colours, but I cannot find it at the moment.--SabreBD (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONTRAST is the most relevant. I'm not too worried about the color being there or not, as the main purpose was hlist-ification, but I remove it if I notice it. I'd be opposed to re-adding it, but not strongly enough to argue about it. --IznoRepeat (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that was the link I was looking for. I will take a look through the policy and see if I can work out where we stand for this colour mix.--SabreBD (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)