Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Archive 3

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

Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4

Contents

Circus music

Alright. A while back I tried to offer up the current link of Circus music as its own page, instead of redirecting to Entrance of the Gladiators as it currently does. I also put it on requested pages. So far, nothing's changed, so I thought I'd drop a note here, maybe someone can create an article about this somewhat distinct genre? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

More Genres

I think a few genres are missing. One might consider these "subgenres" of Electronic, except that these genres don't necessarily include any electronic instruments (if at all):

  • Contemporary Classical
  • New Age
  • Solo Piano

Should these be added to the project? /Timneu22 01:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Heavy metal music FAR

Heavy metal music has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 09:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Meta-Metal

The article about Meta-Metal has been created today. There is only one page that links to this article and I couldn't find any mention of it neither at Heavy metal music nor at List of heavy metal genres. Is there really such a genre? Jogers (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Rumba and Rhumba

Whoever has written the article Rumba, an afro Cuban form of music based on drumming and chants, has got it confused with Rhumba a 1950s Cuban American form of jazz that is not the same thing, (Check this to confirm). The article Rumba therefore mixes the two in a way that is too difficult to extract on first glance. It needs to be rectified fast because its a major error on the part of wikipedia. Help would be welcomed.-- Zleitzen(talk) 05:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC) In United States, Rhumba (written as Rhum) was used for many cuban genres, as cuban son, bolero... There is also a subgenre of flamenco called Rumba flamenca and catalan rumba, also rumba of Congo...194.2.163.124 11:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessments needed

Can the following be assessed please?;

  1. Alternative metal
  2. Christian metal
  3. Classic metal
  4. Dark metal
  5. Oriental metal
  6. Power metal
  7. Progressive metal
  8. Symphonic metal

Thanks. LuciferMorgan 03:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

fusion genres

See : Talk:Music_genre#fusion_genres —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.2.163.124 (talk) 09:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Ballad and Ballad (music) -- Req for input

After visiting the article Ballad and finding it really inadequate in terms of the use of the term in contemporary musical contexts, I decided to create a new article, currently called Ballad (music), & add links in the "Ballad" article and the disambig page. I realize the "Ballad" article itself deals mostly with music, but it's a bit broader, and the definition of the term has strayed a long way from its medieval and renaissance roots. I think the lists of songs in the original article demonstrate massive confusion over definitions (see my comment at Talk:Ballad). I'm not married to the article title as it stands, though.

I'd appreciate other editors' input/help with:

  1. rating/improving the new article,
  2. how to reconcile/clarify the various "Ballad" articles & the disambig page,
  3. possibly editing some links from the original to the new article, and
  4. deciding where ballad should link by default.

Thanks in advance, —Turangalila (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

World Music -> Geographically-based music & Roots music

Hi all. I'm suggesting that the "World Music" project be split into a "Geographically-based music" project, and a "Roots music" project. I'm using "Roots music" in the sense that it's used on the Roots revival page, not the "American roots music" sense.

-- TimNelson 00:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

genre categories

The structure of Category:Albums by genre, Category:Musical groups by genre, Category:Songs by genre, etc., should essentially be identical to Category:Music genres, correct? If you create/move/rename/delete a category in one, you really ought to do it in all of them. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be quite an involved task to keep everything synchronized. It would still be worthwhile... assuming that we had a guideline on what the complete list of genres should be. –Unint 21:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think one needs a complete list of every genre before you start such an effort. Just some thought into how these categories interrelate, and a note at the top of each category about that relationship with a reminder to the effect of what I stated above. Maybe a diagram with a well-known example. As editors become familiar with the "correct" structure, things will begin to conform. ⇔ ChristTrekker 04:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Roots music

Are there any objections if I mark the "Folk music" colour as "includes Roots music"? And also "includes Traditional music"?

-- TimNelson 10:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on eliminating Category:(Nationality) (instrument) by genre from the categorization guidelines

For those interested in how musicians are classified, but who do not have the WikiProject Musicians/Categorization talk page on your watch list, I have started a discussion here about whether we need the category level of Category:American pianists by genre, etc, and I would appreciate views being expressed (at that location, of course). My (possibly incomplete) list of categories that would be upmerged if the guidelines change as I suggest is here. Bencherlite 10:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Genrebox traceback project

I just thought I'd mention that I just created the section Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/To Do#Genrebox traceback project.

-- TimNelson 04:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

FAR

Grunge music has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. NSR77 TC 17:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Visual kei

There is an edit war going on at Visual kei - so I thought I would bring the information here. The argument is "does Visual Kei" count as a genre? The japanese wiki page says so, and divides it up into several sub genres: コテヴィジュ系, (Kotekei - like Early Dir en Grey, Basier, Phantasmagoria), お洒落系(オサレ系)(Oshare Kei - like Baroque, Antic Cafe, Ayabie), コテオサ (Koteosa - like Vidoll, 12012), 黒服系 (Kurofuku kei - like LUNA SEABUCK-TICKZI:KILL, Kuroyume), and ソフトヴィジュアル系 (Soft Visual Kei - like SIAM SHADE, GLAY, SOPHIA, Janne Da Arc, and Sid). Now the problem with the Japanese wiki page is it is not sourced.

I have provided two sources that list Visual as a musical "genre" - even the New York Times is not acceptable. Therefore I will provide all these articles that state Visual Kei is a Genre:

  • 1. New York Times [1]
  • 2. Sociology Thesis paper [2]
  • 3. The Carillon (student newspaper): [3]
  • 4. Big Take Over.com (music site): http://www.bigtakeover.com/news/japanese-rock-on-npr
  • 5. The Grammy's website: [4]
  • 6. J-Music Ignited Japanese Music Site, possible fan site [5]
  • 7. Asian Pacific Arts Magazine [6]
  • 8. Punk News.org (Online Magazine) [7]
  • 9. Fashionline.com (Online Magazine) [8]
  • 10. Tokyo a la Mode (appears professional, potential fan site) [9]
  • 11. Blistering (Online Magazine w/ Interview) http://www.blistering.com/fastpage/fpengine.php/link/1/templateid/12842/tempidx/5/menuid/3 "Blistering: Originally you guys were part of the visual kei movement in Japan. Would that be comparable to U.S. glam rock? What did the movement bring to the music scene? Kaoru: When we were growing up around [the] late '80s and early '90s, visual kei was influenced by glam music. When visual kei became a huge hit, people started seeing it as a form of entertainment and not as being rock. The darker, more extreme image from before is lost, and now people see it as being a genre that appeals to teenage girls."
  • 12. International Music Feed - interveiw with bands that call it a Genre: http://www.imf.com/link_player.html?video_id=2283

Other good ref's for the article - don't mention genre:

So the question become - how many sources do we need to define Visual as a genre? The article continually suffers for [WP:NPOV] type writing, so some non-interested wikipedians jumping in would be very helpful. If we need more sources in japanese, I can get those as well. Denaar 06:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll jump in at Talk:Visual kei -- no sense spreading the discussion around everywhere. -- TimNelson 10:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Update - there is now an official request for comment at the page. Denaar 05:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

G-Unit Records WikiProject

G-Unit Wikiproject.png Invitation
I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject G-Unit Records. We are currently on demand for new members and we believe that the project could benefit from your contributions. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards The-G-Unit-Boss

--The-G-Unit-Boss 19:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

New Age is a nominee for the Article Improvement Drive

The article New Age is a current nominee for the Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. One of the areas in which the article is in need is the "New Age Music" section. Any editors wishing to perhaps help with the development of this article in the Article Improvement Drive should indicate as much at Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive#New Age. Thank you. John Carter 15:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Merging/redirecting Electronic Music and Electronica articles (closed)

Just to let you know there's a discussion going on on Talk:Electronica regarding whether electronica is even a sub-genre or not, and also how to organise the articles on electronic art music and electronic popular music. - Zeibura (Talk) 17:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


update

The discussion about redirecting or merging Electronica to Electronic music taking place at this link: on the Electronica talk page. An editor has stated the intention to make this change quickly, so if anyone wants to enter comments, now would be the time. The editor has already moved Electronic art music to History of Electronic Music without consensus or wider discussion. I'm not saying whether that move was a good idea or not, just reporting that it was done and not discussed. I am posting this as a neutral Request for Comment without involving my own opinions on this, to invite editors from related music pages to participate in the discussion. --Parsifal Hello 06:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion has since been closed with clear consensus to keep the separate article title Electronica. --Parsifal Hello 19:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Electronic dance music page renamed to Electronic Music (popular & dance) (closed)

An editor has redirected Electronic dance music to a new title Electronic Music (popular & dance) without discussion, and has made extensive content changes resulting in loss of information. The result is that there is no longer a page about Electronic dance music. I reverted the change and the editor immediately undid the reversion, and moved the page again, so I am requesting other editors to take a look and form a consensus about which version is wanted. Comments are invited at this talk page link. --Parsifal Hello 09:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The above RFC discussion has been closed with consensus to keep the original page name of Electronic dance music. --Parsifal Hello 19:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Article for Music Genre

The top page for this project - Music Genre - has no sources. I have provided some on the talk page. There is a real need to update that page, as it would be a "high level" article for this project, I am posting a request here. Denaar 16:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with "popularity" section in genrebox

Hi. I've been watching over Eurodance for a while, and basically smoothing out contributions made by many IP editors all around the world. However there is one part of the article that is constantly being changed, which is the popularity section of the infobox. People keep adding and removing countries from the top, medium, and low popularity tiers. So I've come to ask you all, how do you handle this issue in your own articles? In theory a reliable source could settle the matter for good, but how would we get a source rating the popularity of a music genre across the 300 countries in the world? Squidfryerchef 16:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Question about genre boxes being used incorrectly

Just wondering... why does Arena rock have a genre box?? It's one of those "umbrella terms" like "extreme metal" that are not a genre... just a 'term'. But somewhere along the way, someone made a mistake and added a genre box. This is not the only "genre" mistake within Wikipedia. Wiki is overflowing with a hundred of these errors. But this one is one of the more obvious ones. Thoughts?... anyone? 156.34.223.178 19:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Merging/redirecting Industrial rock and Industrial metal articles

I have started a discussion at Talk:industrial rock about merging the two articles. Ridernyc (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Christian soft rock

Christian soft rock at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian soft rock (27 November 2007 – 6 December 2007) Merge→Contemporary Christian music

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Blackened Metalcore

Blackened Metalcore (via WP:PROD on 15 December 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Southern hardcore

Southern hardcore (via WP:PROD on 15 December 2007) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

EXTREME METAL

Why don't we use black for ext. metal? ThundermasterTRUC 10:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please help

{{help}}

There is a huge edit war going on in Gwen Stefani related articles. A user User:Gwenspride08 and 86.29.241.91 are constantly changing the genres. Me and some other editors have continuously reverted the edits on the basis that the original genres hav been sourced from the critical reception sections. But this user mentions some other genre and even provides certain sources for them.

My query is:-

There are thousands of sources on the net who think that the particular song in of some or the other genre. Are we supposed to mention all those genres. Its a huge edit war. Please help. Indianescence (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is being monitored by administrators, my advice is that you do not get involved with the edit war, if you see it happening. place a messages on my talk page Seddon69 (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have sorted out the problem through talking to admins on IRC. The IP has been blocked for 24 hours, and the User has been put on a list, and will have an eye kept on them for 200 hours. They can't be blocked because they edited more than a day ago, and you can't block users after they have stopped vandalising. However, if they do vandalise then they will be blocked. I hope this sorts out the problem. If you have any other queries, feel free to add the {{helpme}} tag back on, or leave a message on my talk page.
Thanks, The Helpful One (Talk) (Contribs) (Review) 18:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Genre templates up for deletion

See the discussion Paul foord (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

February 14

Template:Infobox papacy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox papacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I hope I'm not going to the underworld for this, but I'm nominating this template for deletion because it was created in this previous December without any discussion and was only used on the article Pope. I just subst'ed the template and now it has no mainspace transclusions. Frankly, I don't see it needing to be used on any other pages so there's no need for a template used on a single page. — Axem Titanium (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete I concur, same reasons. Gavin Scott (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless someone has created several new papacies since the last time I looked, this really does have no utility whatsoever. Happymelon 18:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As far as I know there is only one pope at a time, so no need to template it. Arnoutf (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Music genre hardcodings

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was subst: and delete all. Per the strength of arguments below (notably WP:IBX). The deletion does not remove any content. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We might as well have a consolidated discussion about all of these templates. These are all hardcodings of {{Infobox Music genre}}, many of which have only one transclusion, or one legitimate transclusion; there are many instances where these infoboxes are transcluded somewhere they are not appropriate (I've removed several [10][11]). None of the boxes have code so lengthy as to warrant separation from the article, as is perhaps the case with {{elementbox}} and its derivatives. I have excluded {{Christian music}} as it appears to be an exception to this rule, having several legitimate transclusions. If anyone can point out other templates in this selection which are legitimately transcluded several times, I will strike them; most if not all, however, appear to offer no advantage over a direct transclusion of {{Infobox Music genre}}, and should all be substituted and then deleted. Happymelon 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Replace with {{Infobox Music genre}} and delete all. If the main box's color scheme is not to people's liking, it can easily be changed since there is already a parameter for color. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • As I said in the previous discussion on {{techno}}, if these are deleted please make sure they are all substed on their main articles first, to replace the transclusion with a genrebox. I'd have no issue with them being deleted if they're only transcluded onto the articles on the genre. - Zeibura ( talk ) 02:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Subst and speedy delete Aren't these a textbook example of CSD T3? JPG-GR (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment per my above comment, I'm tagging these as CSD T3. JPG-GR (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Case has not convincingly been made for deletion, and a proper substitute that retains the content has not been provided. I don't see how the deletion of these boxes will enhance our encyclopedia for our users. This represents the worst form of overzealousness, as discussion should have been engaged in before such a deletion proposal. Badagnani (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Firstly, this is said discussion. Secondly, all of these templates are filled-in versions of {{Infobox Music genre}}, which is a violation of CSD T3. Thirdly, as I have stated, it's not that these are gonna be stripped from the articles - they will (hopefully obviously/logically), be subst'd on the one or two articles each belongs on and then the separately filled-in templates will be deleted. JPG-GR (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment - This doesn't make any sense. Please use normal English, thanks. First you say we won't lose anything, then you say they'll all be deleted. I'm even more firmly convinced that this deletion proposal was not thought through clearly (and I was not incorrect in stating that no discussion took place before the deletion proposal, as should have occurred, on the individual pages, making it clear what the editor thought was best to improve the templates, why, and how s/he would go about doing that). Badagnani (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Let me explain. Each of these template pages contains nothing more than a template call to {{Infobox Music genre}}. Each one therefore acts merely as a 'wrapper' for Infobox Music genre, which would be fine if the combination of parameters hardcoded into the template was used on many separate pages. This is the case with {{Christian music}}, but is not the case with most if not all of the others. So {{Smoothjazz}} is transcluded only Smooth jazz. Why is it not possible to replace the template call of {{Smoothjazz}} on Smooth jazz with the contents of {{Smoothjazz}}, which is a template call to {{Infobox Music genre}} with all the necessary parameters? This is what is proposed: no content is lost, no alteration occurs to the appearance of the articles. But instead of having 35 templates, we have just one. I hope this explains the process to you - I'm afraid if you still don't understand I can't make it much simpler :D. Apart from that, there is no requirement to discuss wheter it is a good idea to open a deletion discussion - that would be bureaucracy to the extreme. It is the opinion of myself and those who have voted delete that there isn't any way of improving the templates, other than by deleting them. Happymelon 17:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep at one time these boxes were on the Genre, sub-genre and regional scenes pages. They have since been consistently removed from those pages. That was a useful way of navigating between related articles. They could be used ib that way again. (note: I created a number of these based on that rationale.) Paul foord (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Infoboxes, per WP:IBX - should be used to provide summary information about the subject of the article. A sub-genre should have an infobox about that sub-genre, not one that provides information about a different topic. The spirit of WP:IBX is that two identical infoboxes should rarely if ever appear on two different articles - hence there is rarely if ever a need for a template holding a hard-coded infobox. Happymelon 17:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note - they have now been tagged for speedy deletion (CSD T3) - some one doesn't want a discussion! Paul foord (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Under the conditions of WP:CSD#T3, these templates may be deleted only after being tagged for seven days. You'll note that this discussion will finish in five days. This is not an attempt to speedily delete without discussion, but a way of encouraging greater participation in this discussion, as well as a safety net to ensure that, if this discussion closes in favour of deletion, none of them are lost. If you object to the speedy deletion tags, you may remove them, but I really cannot see the purpose in doing so. The outcome of this discussion will overrule the CSD nomination in any case. Happymelon 17:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, I'd call that forum-shopping. Instead of vote for keep or delete, I !vote that the people who are willing to spend all their time conjuring up multiple deletion processes for this instead go in and fill in the appropriate genre infoboxes on all the pages that have these other templates in them. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Umm... once they are subst'd they will be filled-in on all the pages that have them. JPG-GR (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm not stupid. While you were busy patronizing me, I fixed them all (and not by sloppily substing them either). They are all now orphaned and this discussion can be closed as speedy delete - orphaned deprecated templates all around. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Not patronizing, attempting to explain. Given the previous comments from others, I'm not sure how well known template-eese is. WP:AGF. JPG-GR (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete under CSD:T3. Thanks for reading, ThunderMaster UTC 15:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Subst and delete. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Future election in the United States

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
  • After carefully considering all the arguments, I must say that the surge of keeps at the end and Dr who1975's argument win out. Kept. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 23:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:Future election in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's excessive and unnecessary. Merge into Template:Future election.Markles 14:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

***I don;t agree on the overcategorization point... however... if automatic categorization is the only concern, couldn't Template:Future election be updated to automatically put Category:Future_elections on it's pages. Wouldn't that be the sensible solution to categorization concerns?--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC) Nevermind.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Neutral for now: Based on Yellowdesk's numbers I favor retaining the distinction, but not significantly. My concern had been ensuring that Future election could distinguish between article/section and uncategorized/specific elections, but I discovered (and just now documented) that that template already has that capability! That is, the "future election" template can distinguish the U.S. elections to the user, but cannot distinguish them while categorizing. If it's possible for it to sort its contained articles by Field 2, why, then, this question is academically settled in favor of deletion. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, Thats a redundant template as {{Future election}} does the same job. As for the categorization I don't see a reason why those pages can't go into Category:Future elections.
  • Merge to {{Future election}} - no clear need for this specific case, and US elections are not special, it's just that more of them happen to be covered on Wikipedia. WP:OVERCAT also applies, so we should delete the category as well. Happymelon 21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, Third-world countries' elections should use the regular election template, USA elections deserve there own template. They are more thoroughly covered and should have a specification on the template that it is a US election.CoolKid1993 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It's not a matter of who "deserves" it. 1st world or 3rd, there's no USE for this template.—Markles 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, provides nothing useful, compared to the main template. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. If half of the 300 'future elections' articles are in the U.S., it's not "overcategorization," it's simple organization. If any other country were to have a large amount of future elections, another sub-cat/template would be appropriate for them, too. —ScouterSig 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge It really does seem unecessary, there are plenty of mechanisms in place to distiguish future U.S. elections from othere countries and the existence of this template does nothing to improve on them. How does this template make it easier to search on U.S. elections?--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It automatically puts election pages in the U.S. Future Election Category which is a different category than future elections... It is not overcategorization and it in fact reduces undercategorization by putting U.S. elections into a smaller, easier to scrutinize category. Election pages can often have such similar names and it helps to get them seperated into categories. This template makes serching for data in wikipedia easier and better.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Regarding the overcategorization issue, ditto Dr. who1975. As to the necessity question, what is important is whether it is helpful. As Dr. who explains in the immediately preceding comment, the US-specific template puts articles in the US-specific category. That is helpful. If the generic template could be modified to put the article in a subcategory if country = United States, I would agree that the US template is unnecessary and should be deleted. -Rrius (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. It's not overcategorisation, it's simply common sense. —Nightstallion 22:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Dr who1975, Rrius, and Nightstallion. Regarding the issue of "who deserves it": the separate template does not signify that elections in the U.S. are "special", it just means that (as of yet) no one has created templates for "future elections in" ....England, Canada, Brazil, et al.--JayJasper (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into {{future election}} as long as that template is modified to include a "location" parameter which would sort elections in separate country categories and possibly include a flag on the template. Essentially, I think there should be fewer, standardized templates rather than many templates, which could evolve in different directions. The template should be kept until this "location/country/jurisdiction" parameter is added. ~ PaulT+/C 18:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Is there an automated bot that could apply such a parameter to all the U.S. elections that use the U.S. Template?--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rrius, Dr who1975, etc. This template serves a purpose since categorization of US Elections is very helpful for people. It would be annoying to have to sort through all 300 elections to pick out the US ones, if a particular wikipedia user was only interested in the US ones. This is not overcategorization as it actually has a purpose and isn't for just 3 articles out there. There is a sizeable number. -Bluedog423Talk 22:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's useful for categorization. Every country with a significant number of elections could easily have its own template and subcategory. Grandmasterka 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Grandmasterka... having very specific current event categories is useful for maintenence purposes. E.g. it will be easier to go through all the US election-related articles the day after the election this year if they're all alone in a category. --Rividian (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Reggaetonbox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was discussion consolidated here. Happymelon 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Reggaetonbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Reggaetónbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Happymelon 21:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not useful as a template due to low level of transclusion. — Stifle (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:techno

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was discussion consolidated here. Happymelon 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Techno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not useful as a template due to low level of transclusion. — Stifle (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I can see deleting this would be no issue as the same could be achieved on the techno article using the standard genrebox template, which is what makes this. However if this is deleted please make sure it's substed on the techno article first. - Zeibura ( talk ) 16:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Google images

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus Happymelon 23:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Google images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A deletion request has been added on the Norwegian Wikipedia at no:Wikipedia:Sletting#Mal:Google-bilder. I'd rather see that this deletion discussion also can be done here. Main reason for deletion request is a hypotesis that this linking will mostly add links to illegal copyright material. — Nsaa (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It was I who unadverently started this, after finding such a link at French WP. At first it seemed a good idea, so I imported the link. Then I asked for a Norwegian procedure with a question if this might be a good idea. Obviously it finally was not considered that.
Many results go to irrelevancies, and to give Google a search containing a popular first name like Arnold - oooh! But searches often present results linking to material that clearly is a breach of Norwegian laws regulating works of art, so for us, I think the intention (good) does not defend implementing and using the template on no:WP, because of too high % suspect results. --Bjørn som tegner (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, template really isn't a good idea for this one, encouraging links to Google Images is probably a WP:EL vio. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, {{Google images}} contains safety code to prevent people from using it in articles:
{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|<span class="messagebox" style="padding: 0; 
font-size: xx-small; color: #000000;">''[[Template:Google]] should not be used in 
articles as Google links are not considered appropriate for an encyclopedia.''
External link templates such as {{Google}}, {{Google images}}, {{Google custom}}, and {{Google help desk}} are not for use in articles; they are for use in talk pages and project pages such as the Help desk, the Reference desk, WikiProjects, etc. The other Google-search-related templates explain this in their documentation, but {{Google images}} does not yet, so I will fix that. Also, see the similar deletion discussion that resulted in "keep": Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_19#Template:Google. --Teratornis (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I updated the template documentation and put it on a new subpage: Template:Google images/doc, in keeping with what seems to be the new style of documenting templates on separate subpages via the {{documentation}} template (subpaging the documentation seems a bit complicated to me, but I can roll with it). --Teratornis (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:House of Stewart (Scotland)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep, in a modified form. Happymelon 23:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:House of Stewart (Scotland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As an exercise in the design of templates which completely and utterly bugger up any real possibility of adding images to an article, and which force succession boxes two or three printed pages of whitespace down the page - see James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray or David Stewart, Duke of Rothesay, for example, this template takes the biscuit. Have not its creators looked at what it does to the pages it has been placed on? Have they ever tried to place a right justified image onto an article despoiled by this template? Do we need to know, or care enough to want to see listed in a template all of the the children of all of the Stuart kings? Wither any common sense in the design of templates? For all of these reasons, let us be rid of this useless & ill thought out conceit, or at a bare minimum let someone come along & add some expand/contract wizardry defaulting to contracted, or convert it into a horizontal template to be placed at the foot of articles or, come and take me away, foaming with indignation and utter astonishment to the nearest place of asylum. Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete and yepee too ... thought no-one would ever get around to nominating that monstrosity! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This template adds nothing to the article that couldn't be better provided by a House of Stewart (Scotland) template at the bottom of the page. The need for the entire line of Stewart Kings and their children in a sidebar infobox eludes me. -Rrius (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and fix It's awful, yes, but fixable. Wizardified version here, as converted to navbox & horizontal navigational footer style. Note that I've reverted to the prior format for now, until the TfD is resolved. Maralia (talk)
  • Fix per Maralia -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Fix per Maralia. I'll implement it this evening. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Street Fighter anime

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge with Template:Street Fighter series and delete. Happymelon 23:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Street Fighter anime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pretty unnecessary template, and could be merged into Template:Street Fighter series.. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 00:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge and Delete. Agreed. The contents can easily be merged into Template:Street Fighter series, making the links more compact and easy to maintain. Jappalang (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Merged the links from the anime template into the SF template, keeping the adaptations per VG series distinct. --BrokenSphereMsg me 01:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete now that it has been merged. - 52 Pickup (deal) 15:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Requiring your attention on Hip hop articles

Please pay attention to Talk:Hip_hop_music#Rename, poll, as well as Talk:Rapping#Merge, poll and Talk:Hip_hop_music#Merge, poll. Netrat_msk (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No Genre for Choral (choirs) music

On major genre of music missing from all genre discussions on Wikipedia is Choral music (choirs, purely vocal, religious and non-religious). This is a major category of music worldwide and yet doesn't appear anywhere here. Can someone add the genre: Choral to the list? Atmop (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)atmop

Genre Music Samples...

...that are non-free are ALL in violation of WP:NFCC because we can easily grab freely licensed stuff off Jamendo instead. Your thoughts? ViperSnake151 00:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Blues FAR

Blues has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Merger to WikiProject Music

I agree this should be merged into WikiProject Music. --Kleinzach 09:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Music genre

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

{{genre}}

Isn't that a confusing name for the template? Afterall, there are film genres and fiction genres. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)