Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Archive 1

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

Archive 1 | Archive 2

The following discussion 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.

Sample tables and footers

There are some more sample tables and footers at User:TUF-KAT/Fun with tables. They are all a work in progress, especially electronic music, which may be too vague a term for the infobox. Tuf-Kat 04:34, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

  • Wow! That looks awesome. You've obviously been putting a great deal of thought into it, and it is paying off. Kingturtle 06:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nice One. Do you want me to make a start on Reggae? --Bwmodular 11:08, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'm probably going to start implementing the ones on my subpage tonight. Tuf-Kat 11:21, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
Great. There's a start at User:Bwmodular/SandBox. An interesting question arose for me though. In the broadest context of Reggae, I'd say that Ska and Rocksteady are sub genres of Reggae. However, historically, they are really precursors and influences on, rather than sub-genres. I've put them in as sub genres, but would value your opinion. Can they go in both sections? I'll wait for you to implent yours before I do mine, in case of any last minute changes to the format.--Bwmodular 11:52, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
About to add the Reggae box, but can't work out where you've put the msg:hiphop custom message. It's not here Wikipedia:MediaWiki_custom_messages or Wikipedia:MediaWiki_custom_elements - Can you tell me where I should put msg:reggae? Thanks. --Bwmodular 11:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oversight. It should be at Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom elements and indeed, is now. Tuf-Kat 15:20, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
Reggae pages done - now to write that missing page for Dub Poetry :) --Bwmodular 10:37, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk note

I created Template:genre for music genres talk pages. Tuf-Kat 06:40, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Heavy metal genrebox color







I would like to suggest the change of the color of the genrebox of heavy metal to a tone close to "#ca1b02". Cyan doesn't quite reflect the overall feeling of the genre. I would like to hear the opinion of anybody involved in the project. If I get no negative replies in three days, I will make the change. --Sn0wflake 03:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I actually do agree that heavy metal should be in the red category. However, your somewhat brownish-red shade IMO deosn't reflect the feeling of the genre either.

I have these suggesstions (top to bottom):

  • A fiery vermilion (#FF4D00)
  • An also fiery scarlet (#FF2400)
  • Somewhat of a blood red (#BB0022)

Andros 1337 03:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of #BB0022. I support it fully. --Sn0wflake 03:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perfect! Andros 1337 04:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What about Classical?

What about Romantic? Borouque? Classical? I think there is much lacking. All I see is "popular" music.

Classical music has entirely different needs, and its own Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music. Tuf-Kat 00:42, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
And what about new age music? --Andylkl (talk) 10:57, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Should probably have its own color and genrebox. Tuf-Kat 20:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

New stub template: {{music-genre-stub}}

Greetings from the WikiProject Stub sorting. As some of you probably already noticed, there is now a dedicated stub template for music genres. I guess I should make a proper announcement here anyway. The template is Template:music-genre-stub, and the Category is Category:Music genre stubs. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

lists of metal bands

Please have a look @ Talk:List_of_heavy_metal_bands#Redundant. Sam Spade 15:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

heavy metal

I edited {{Heavymetal}}

Now I am getting all kinds of grief on my talk page, among other reasons because I had the audacity to change the color? Apparently I have to ask permission, or some such? Is this the right place? And who gets to decide? Why them and not me (who rewrote the template). Sam Spade 23:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Because the Wikipedia is a democracy. As for the proposition, I vote against it. All templates should follow the current color pattern (white/black letters on a contrasting background). If this kind of exception is made, then everyone gets the same privilege, which will lead into a minor standard chaos. --Sn0wflake 00:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. Also, what is the possible harm of some variety of color? Sam Spade 10:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It keeps everything simple. If heavy metal gets a special text color, that means that other genres will have to get a text color too. This will make things more complicated. I started the concept of using different colors for different genres, and it was greatly expanded by Tuf-Kat. I wanted this to be a simple color-coding method. Andros 1337 20:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Sam Spade, to me, what that paragraph you linked says is: empty votes with no reasoning or argumentation are discouraged, not the proccess of reaching a community consensus by means of vote. I did present a reason for my vote. It is simply a matter of all templates following this standard. No font color. It helps improve redability and gives a more professional look to the 'pedia. --Sn0wflake 20:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines. Sam Spade 21:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you proposing the creation of a survey? --Sn0wflake 22:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, no. I am advising you to read that policy, which explains that the wikipedia is not a democracy, and that votes are not binding. Anyhow, I am going to step back from this template color discussion for awhile, maybe I'll bring it up some other day. Sorry to ruffle so many feathers, Sam Spade 22:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

That is most certainly not explained there. A democracy occurs when all can express their thoughts about a situation. It has NOTHING to do with voting. --Sn0wflake 23:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking about Democracy? Thats a system where people vote. The wikipedia is not one. We are a benevolant dictatorship, with an underlying philosophy of concensus. Lets move on, eh? Sam Spade 00:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Intersting, you created an argument and vehemently insisted on your point. You then lost interest and randomly posted rules and links to try to come off as superior whithout ever giving a straight answer. Yes, I do tire of arguing with you. Let's indeed move on. --Sn0wflake 01:23, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Related discussions

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World music#template use and Category:Articles needing an infobox. Circeus 17:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


What the heck? I don't hav e the time to follow you about reverting you, but... this sucks! Sam Spade 15:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres is pretty clear -- only the top-level genre page (e.g. heavy metal music) gets the infobox. That's exactly how every other infobox on the wiki works AFAIK. Tuf-Kat 15:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

In my experience Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres is aplace where one or 2 arrogant people make decisons for the rest of us, suggesting that being members of a wiki-project grants them sort of final say (I am unaware of wiki-projects having any actual official authority). Maybe I'm just jaded, see my experience here. Either way I completely disagree with what your doing. I see no possible benifit, but plenty of inconvenience and instruction creep. So... outside of some obscure guideline on a wikiproject w 3 members... why are you doing this?Sam Spade 15:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it's an infobox... All infoboxes go on one page -- it's got information about heavy metal music, not grindcore or National Socialist black metal. Most of the info and links in the box are tangential at best in an article like Bay Area thrash metal. If someone wanted to come up with a standardized way of linking subgenres (or even an infobox designed for subgenres), I'd be fine with that, but it's just far too bulky and irrelevant to throw template:heavy metal into dozens of articles. Tuf-Kat 16:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

We probably agree more than we disagree, esp. about cruft like "Bay Area thrash metal". Where we don't agree is how templates help or hinder obscure articles. I personally put them EVERYWHERE they could possibly of value, because they help me(and others) ALOT. Lets have a look @ {{Heavymetal}} {{blackmetal}} Both have cruft. Both help readers find what they are looking for. Neither is irrelevant. If they are bulky, lets trim the template, not trim the template from the articles it links to! Sam Spade 16:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think both are useful for the articles they were meant to be used in. Template:Heavy metal is useful in the article on heavy metal music, template:Blackmetal is useful in the article on black metal. Some sort of templatized box might very useful on heavy metal subgenre and other related pages, but we need a box specifically designed for that purpose. Tuf-Kat 16:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, the genrebox needs someone who knows how to make sections optional. Samba looks ridiculous... Also, only top-level genres should have a box like this -- others generally don't need it (such as the one I removed awhile ago from Miami bass). Does anyone agree that only major genres need boxes? (of the current type, anyway, since they mostly won't use many of the fields) Tuf-Kat

I really don't see the downside of putting templates on every page they link to. I've always done that, and am at a loss to see the downside. I personally jump from article to article making edits and researching bands, and find them incredibly useful. That alone would seem to trump the "clutter" issue (the only argument I have discerned, outside of wiki-project guidelines, which I'd be glad to change). Sam Spade 17:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Reasons not to:
    • This Wikiproject page has said not to for a long time, and no one has ever complained. Therefore, I think there is consensus for that rule.
    • Clutter, providing lots of irrelevant links in articles that don't need them; relevant links could be better provided using a different template
    • Inconsistency in that some genres are currently following WikiProject directions and using footers, others use bizarre combinations of things, and some genre pages even use two separate boxes
    • Potential for bias in that many genres are of disputed lineage and/or may need several boxes - e.g. grindcore, which could easily get three or four
    • This is the normal way Wikipedia works. I don't know of any infobox that is repeated on numerous pages. There's no taxobox at trade and usage of saffron, the Canada infobox is not at Quebec, nor at geography of Canada, etc. Why should this one be different?
  • With that said, we're obviously not going to convince each other. More opinions are needed. Tuf-Kat 17:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as genreboxes go, I agree with Tuf-Kat that the heavy Metal genrebox does not belong on it's sub/fusion genres (Though i can't tell about "derivative" stuff as I have NO idea where is the difference). However, I don't see why {{Infobox Music genre}} for sub/fusio genres with the most proeminent parent's color scheme. But here I speak as an outsider with little knowledge in the area, so feel free to disregard that. Circeus 18:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I also took the liberty of posting a request for comment on this. Am I right to say that Sam Spades eoughly believes that Genrebox such as {{heavymetal}} should be applied to all subgenres? Circeus 19:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Why not just make a smaller box like we did for hip-hop for the individual articles?--Urthogie 21:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You mean a footer? I could have sworn there was one already for that style family. *facepalm* That is the quite obvious answer to the whole issue, and is actually standard for these articles. Circeus 21:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Glad to be of service.--Urthogie 21:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

POV push?

There seems to be POV issues over at Rapcore:

Opinions? Comment? Circeus 01:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

aditionally, see [1], [2] and [3]. I cannot comment on these as I have no musical knowledge myself.
Avoid a revert battle by asking him to use talkpage before controversial edits--Urthogie 16:41, 12 February 2006 (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.