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.
One problem is that "new wave" means different things in the US and in the UK – in the UK it would not necessarily have been associated with synthpop because it was used to describe immediate post-punk outfits... it would have been far more common in the UK press in the 1970s to use "new wave" to describe acts like Television, Blondie and Elvis Costello, who definitely weren't synthesizer-based bands. And conversely, the idea that 1980s mainstream pop acts like Culture Club, Tears for Fears or Howard Jones were in any way "new wave" would have had you laughed out of Britain. Richard3120 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Of course. It's the same thing with Shoegazing and Dream pop, as well as the other examples I named. "Art rock" is not "progressive rock", but history has treated those terms interchangeably. Similarly, "shoegazing" is what the British used to call "dream pop". It was only later that these all became their own distinguished genres.
Another example is Acid rock. There is a persistent edit war over whether "psychedelic rock" should be listed as a stylistic origin. According to numerous sources, "psychedelic rock" and "acid rock" mean the same thing. So having psychedelic rock as the "origin" of acid rock violates WP:NPOV, since it pushes the pov that acid rock came after psyche rock. That leaves |other_topics= as the only appropriate spot for linking psyche rock. But I think adding |other_names= is a fairer solution. Psychedelic and acid rock are inextricable – they shouldn't be linked in a "footnotes"-type section for both infoboxes.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you, but I know other editors have different views – I was just highlighting one example where genre warriors could end up arguing about whether a particular act was new wave or not. I generally steer well clear of any genre discussions, it would take up too much of my editing time which would be better spent elsewhere. Richard3120 (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Support. Comprehensive the way an encyclopedia should be. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Support - Summoned by bot. As noted in the RfC statement, music genres don't always have a single name. Meatsgains (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Support. I too was invited by the bot. At first I thought that this would just be a sinkhole of editor time trying to get consensus on what to put in the field, but in looking at some of the genre pages I realize it's too late, the discussions are already been happening about which names to include in the lead sections. As long as the two match, it shouldn't be a problem, and the readers will have a choice of paragraph or point form for the information.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Support Invited by bot. Seems like a mostly positive addition, but it will need monitoring just like other parts of articles that can become bloated, unsourced, or show undue weight. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.