Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music:

I've been working on my proposal a week longer than I said I would be, and I'm still not done. Still, I'd say it's about 90 percent complete. Most of the remaining work revolves around rephrasing my own words to make sure the instructions I detailed are understandable for everyone and easy to follow. With that in mind, please take a look at my draft here and leave comments in this talk section if something is confusing or if you think something should be rephrased for clarity. Please do not express support or objection to this proposal yet. We're not at that point yet. That's what we're doing when I finish it, and I'm not finished. I want to make sure I can write out the best guideline I can before we discuss whether to implement it or not.

So once again, if something in the guideline draft doesn't make sense to you, please post comments here and I'll do my best to address them. Do not comment on the guidelines themselves. We'll get to that soon enough. And please, don't make edits to my workspace; I'll implement changes myself. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor grammatical note: I see one ~~or more~~ "try and"s that should be changed to "try to"s. Just nitpicking. Overall it looks very well-worded. —IllaZilla (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with using "Pop, R&B, Funk, and Rock" to describe Prince or using "Alternative rock, Electronica, and Trip-hop" to describe Björk? Neither is more than the four-genre limit you suggested earlier. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the "Do not rely on allmusic as your sole source" point gets an enormous thumbs up from me. I for one am sick of that site being used as the absolute gospel end-all reference. Prophaniti (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

-sigh- Ok, this is why I wanted to hold back on this for a bit. I appreciate the comments, but for now, let's all stick to "Does the phrasing make sense or not?" Any further questions about the guidelines themselves beyond "I don't get it" can wait until later. Twas Now, I've hidden your comments below because we were getting off-topic. I mainly need to make sure people understand and can follow the draft first; the discussion of the points contained in the draft is something for later. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Twas Now

Here are some more of my comments.

I am wary of setting such strict limits on the number of genres (four for artists, three for albums, one for songs). I agree the line needs to be drawn somewhere, but allowing just one per song will probably instigate those who think their genre choice is "right" into edit warring. I would say 0–2 for songs, 0–4 for albums, and 0–6 for artists.

With songs, very few fit into more than one genre, so one is a nice default. With artists, once you get past four genres you either need to be more general or not bother with the genre field altogether (which is an option I included in this proposal). The only limit I haven't been set on yet is the one for album infoboxes, although I do think the recommendation of picking the most applicable is the best approach. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicking: "paragraph break script" — the <br /> element is usually called a "line break".

"Genres at the same level should be in alphabetical order" — An alternative is to order them based on how prominent each genre is featured. "Prominence" can be decided on based on references. For example, if we have three "gangsta rap" songs on an album, and 11 "G-funk" songs, should "gangsta rap" appear first?

Alphabetical order is more straightforward and doesn't mire editors in debates over what is the more prevalent genre on a record. Also, since G-funk is a specific type of gangsta rap, it's probably better to just list "gangsta rap" or "Hip hop". Keep it simple. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

if you're now welcoming comments on the content: listing genres in order of "prominence" in an artist's oeuvre or on an album makes more sense in terms of properly characterizing the music and in terms of wikipedia policies. alphabetical order is arbitrary, and if resorted to to resolve disputes, it should be an "if all else fails" option. Sssoul (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My fear is that trying to determine which genre on an album is more "prominent" will encourage subjectivity. We want to cut down on subjectivity. Anyways, the topic of what styles are more prominent on albums than other is too detailed to try to address in the infobox, so alphabetical order is the most straightforward approach. Also, the subject of how to order genres primarily applies to artist infoboxes, not album infoboxes, where I stipulated you are encouraged to choose one genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

i understand that you feel "alphabetical order is the most straightforward approach"; i disagree, because it's an arbitrary order that would frequently misrepresent the music, which is contrary to the purpose of an info box.

also, could we clarify what the intended purpose of this piece of writing is? is it meant to be an essay presenting your own personal approach to writing about genres, or a starting point for hammering out guidelines that would represent some kind of consensus? thanks Sssoul (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How about listing in alphabetical order unless there is a reliable source which states the what the main genre is. That would get round the subjectivity problem and anything else would surely be original research anyway. --JD554 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I like your next suggestion about chronological order for an artist who has greatly changed their sound.

I wasn't sure about that one at first, but I think it helps for context. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't discourage linking to the "Musical style" section from the infobox. A lot of people refer to the infobox before looking at the ToC, particularly when searching for the genre. It's not necessarily a content dispute either: If two (or more) reputable sources claim two (or more) different genres, then it is an academic dispute, and we should give attention to all significant views per WP:NPOV. In taxonomy articles, it is not uncommon to see a link from the "subtaxa" part of the infobox to a section in the article (see Primate, under the "Families" part of the infobox), and this can be used effectively.

This is a big issue that a few editors wanted addressed in the genre debates a few weeks ago. Bottom line is, linking to the article itself and saying "genre is disputed!" doesn't help the poor souls who happen across an article wanting to learn more about the subject. If the debate is that contentious, I inserted the ability to remove the genre field in such an event. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying when it's not a content dispute (editor vs. editor), but when it's an academic dispute (e.g. music journalist vs. music theorist). We can't exclude two valid points of view simply because they disagree. If both are good, both should be put in. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem of linking to the article from the infobox is the result of editors, not the sources themselves. If the genre is disputed by sources, then don't include the genre field in the infobox; simple as that. But it's really bad to link to a section in the article from that article's infobox. It's uninformative, it doesn't solve the debate, it is redundant to the article table of contents, it draws unnecessary attention to a content debate, and it's unsightly. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If the only thing in the genre parameter was a simple link saying "See article" (with an internal link to the section), this wouldn't draw any more attention than having one or two genres listed there. Since our goal is to eliminate unreferenced genres being thrown into the infobox (or anywhere, for that matter), providing an easy link for readers to a section where the genre is discussed can't hurt. People look to the infobox for quick information; if they see it is blank with a , readers may want to add the genre, and will first have to open the edit page, then find out it's been agreed upon to leave blank. If we have a section link, editors can quickly see the article does have a genre. It's not hurting anyone to have a second (redundant) link. Being unsightly is debatable. I think it works well in the taxonomy articles and could in music articles, as well. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, before reading this suggestion of yours, I was going to recommend we encourage users who are in a genre dispute to provide a link from the infobox, to a section where the disputed genres are both mentioned in prose.

Same as above. Our concern is informing the readers, not drawing attention to editor debates. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"the genre mentioned in the first sentence should not be more specific than other genres mentioned further down in the lead" — Sometimes a musician working in one or more subgenres has an undeniable influence on something much greater than just that genre. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is ostensibly a "psychedelic rock" album, but its influence on rock and pop music as a whole is great indeed.

The idea per lead section guidelines is that your first sentence should be very straightforward and clear; details are introduced later in the article. Thus, you can be more specific later on. In the case of Sgt. Peepper, what you want to do is begin "Sgt. Pepper... is an album by the British rock group The Beatles, released in 1967. It was a seminal album in the psychedelic rock genre." Something like that. That way you ease an unfamiliar reader into the subject. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I misunderstood this. I was thinking "if a subgenre is mentioned in the lead, don't discuss a more general genre later in the article", but you were only referring to later in the lead. My comment about how specific we should be applies here: the WP:LEAD guidelines and style guides would probably suggest you start with general comments, and lead into more specific content. We don't need to reiterate it here. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD won't tell you the specifics of how to address genres in the lead section. But we can with this. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, but WP:LEAD doesn't give the specifics of how to address anything, really. Do we need to guide people's hands on how to write articles? The more restrictions we put in place, the more uniform each article becomes. Cookie-cutter articles are boring! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

i'd rephrase the advice about what sources to consider: it's not across-the-board true that biographers are more reliable about genre than critics/reviewers, or that the artists' own views should always be ignored. something more like "biographical works are sometimes more useful than reviews" and "the artists' own views should not be given more weight than any other source" would be more appropriate, i think. Sssoul (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"In the lead sections of album and song articles, genre is usually only mentioned in relation to the artist who made it" — This is a bit confusing, but I gather you mean that songs are generally not of one particular genre, but it is artists' individual recordings that make the song "genre x" or "genre y". I don't think this statement should have "album", since an album is usually made by one artist, and compilation albums are going to be handled differently anyway. Maybe instead:

"In the lead section of song articles, the genre should generally be avoided—unless the work is significant to a particular style—because different artists may record the song in different genres. The genre can be mentioned in relation to particular recordings of the song."

Will try to make clearer. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Indicate if the work is influenced by any particular styles, or is representative of a particular style." — I think this delves into unnecessary detail. A good editor will know to do this already, and a bad editor won't do it anyway.

Even good editors wouldn't necessarily know how to tackle the subject, particularly if they primarily edit in other areas of Wikipedia and are working on their first music article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, but do you think an editor who generally doesn't work on music-related articles will even know about this guideline? I guess it couldn't help to leave it in though, for those who do find it and are interested. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If they don't know about it, they don't know about it. The idea is we want to give people a guide on who to approach genres in music articles, so we need to cover all the bases. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

More generally, try to keep the guidelines general and suggestive rather than specific and prescriptive. (Some things should remain prescriptive, however, like keeping radio formats from being used as genres, etc.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I made the guidelines specific at points in order to ensure there's no confusion. There's still a bit of flexibility, but I don't want editors to be groping blindly trying to figure out what exactly they should do. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they will be groping blindly. There's no guideline now, and most editors are doing just fine at handling genres. If it's not spelled out, most people will know what is appropriate. In general, be specific about "what is acceptable/unacceptable" for content and references, and be general about "what is acceptable/unacceptable" for style and formatting. Or split this into a content guideline (the most important) and a style guideline. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually editors aren't doing well with approaching music genres, by and large, as the discussion in the last month has shown. That's why this guideline is being drawn up. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that this problem arose because some editors were fervently approaching genres poorly, not because most editors were approaching it poorly. I would guess the problem is mainly with IPs or editors who don't bother following policy and guidelines—in other words, the same people who aren't going to bother following this either. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

the kinds of "problematic genre edits" i see most often are definitely from editors who don't seem to read talk pages, let alone policies/guidelines. i share Twas Now's view that the editors who work most on music articles probably don't need/want highly prescriptive guidelines. Sssoul (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps WesleyDodds could clarify where exactly he hopes his document will go if it is approved? Which music projects would use the guiidelines? (Please note there are about 50 active music projects represented and they range widely in subject matter.) --Klein zach 06:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems that we may be ready to move beyond discussing comprehensibility? (I personally find the guideline comprehensible. :)) I'd suggest that we centralize discussion to User talk:WesleyDodds/tempwork2. That way, if the guideline is adopted, the discussion about it will be connected to it, which will be valuable for archival. It will also allow this page to continue to function for other matters rather than being overwhelmed with genre talk, as it was before. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Netrat

:: First, examples given are controversial. Like, most people would say ne metal is a sub-genre of alternative rock, not heavy metal. Why don't we use examples that won't cause any doubts in anyone? Let me fix this for you. Netrat (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Is the genre real?" and "Ignore what the artist classifies themselves as" sections do not mention the fact that sometimes artists invent a new "genre" to classify their own music, so genre includes one artist only - like Keziah Jones's Blufunk, Ciara's Crunk & B, Seryoga's sporty chastushka, Streetwize's Smooth Urban Jazz, Finntroll's humppa metal etc. However, in very few cases, such "genres" do become actual genres, like Rambo Amadeus's Turbo-folk. There are no doubts that such self-labels should be mentioned in the article, but it is probably not OK to include them into infoboxes. Netrat (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your proposed limits of 4, 3 and 1 genres for infoboxes. They are based on your IMHO, nothing more. Do you belive "Jazz, Funk and Fusion" would be enough for Miles Davis, Stanley Clarke or Marcus Miller? Hell no! And what about Rick Rubin, Bob Dylan and many others? Second, there are compilation or experimental albums that can span over several genres. For songs, some are experimental crossovers, so at least two genres should be allowed. Like, is Baby Boy (Beyonce Song) a cont.R&B song or a dancehall song? We may need some reasonable limit, but not such tight and strict one. Maybe five for each infobox type or even ten for artists. Netrat (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with "In the case of compilation albums that contain music by more than one artist or group, no genre should be listed in the infobox." Most VA compilations are genre-based compilations that can be easily filed under a single genre, sometimes even featuring a name of the genre in its title: LTJ Bukem's Earth, Weapons of Mass Creation, Sambass, The Roots of Dubstep, Dubstep Allstars, Frequent Flyer, Hed Kandi Beach House, Stereo Sushi, Es Vive Base Bar Ibiza, Ragga Jungle Anthems, Return of The DJ, Rap Godfathers, thousands of them! Netrat (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Do not include citations in the genre field; they are unsightly and crowd the infobox" rule won't do any good. Citing a reference in infobox is usually the best way to stop an edit war over a genre. Genre Warriors won't read the whole article, would they? Netrat (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The 4th paragraph of "Formatting" section is confusing. First you say "When dealing with an artist who has performed music in a number of overrarching genres, list only the overarching genres and no subgenres" (something I won't agree with, I don't see why we cannot list sub-genres from different broad genres, maybe not even mentioning such broad genres), then you say "Genres at the same level should be in alphabetical order." implying that sometimes genres listed are not at the same level. Also, why do we need to list a broad genre when all artist's sub-genres belong to the same genre (like in your example of "Hip hop, gangsta rap, G-Funk, West Coat hip hop")? Netrat (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Putting a limit for the genres listed in the genre field is a bad idea and could just increase the genre wars. There's some bands which cover more than 4 genres. Same with albums in that some cover more than 3 genres. Same with songs in that some cover more than 1 genre. And also, I think it looks better if the genres are separated by line breaks rather than commas. Kokoro20 (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Libs, consensus can change, and being "encyclopedic" takes a backseat to readability. Are there any reasons commas are preferred other than these two? --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I like line breaks because it's easier to read the infobox in a list format (especially if there are citations) and it's consistent with other infoboxes. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Would WesleyDodds bother to answer my comments directly? Especially when it comes to my most serious concerns, namely:

(2) There are compilation or experimental albums that can span over several genres - thus 2 genres are not enough for albums. For songs, some are experimental crossovers, so at least two genres should be allowed. Like, is Baby Boy (Beyonce Song) a cont.R&B song or a dancehall song?

(3) disagree with "In the case of compilation albums that contain music by more than one artist or group, no genre should be listed in the infobox." Most VA compilations are genre-based compilations that can be easily filed under a single genre Netrat (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Slang terms, nicknames and abbreviations

There seems to be quite a few articles about bands that contain unsourced nicknames, slang terms and abbreviations for a band name as an alternative. Some of them seem to be either made up for the article or at least only used amongst a select group. I just want to clarify the rules around the inclusion of such terms. I consider the rules about neologisms to apply here - "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term" - in that simply pointing to uses of the term cannot be considered reliable evidence and there must a reliable source documenting the use of a term. For instance [1] documents the Frank Sinatra's 'chairman of the board' nickname. Any opinions? --neon white talk 15:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagging years in music articles

Do articles like 2000 in music fall under your scope? If so, how should they be tagged? There is not (that I know of) any generic WikiProject Music tag for talk pages, and I hate to leave an article untagged, so should I just use the WikiProject Media template or is there a better way? Any help is appreciated. Thanks! --Cerebellum (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaks

Do we have any policies regarding info on "leaked" songs? Leaks via the internet as such a common occurrence these day's, it's almost trivia. Yet everyone feels the need to add info about something popping up on youtube, at a fan site or whatnot. Firstly it's happening all the time (not a big deal really), secondly it's a terribly boring piece of information. — Realist² 15:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Album certifications

A lot of articles here on Wikipedia use the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for citing that an album has gone Gold, Platinum, etc. The problem with this is that the source is that the link is usually something like this and doesn't actually source anything and users have to manually check if the said album was certified what is said in the article. On the other hand, there are some that can actually point out exactly what you're looking for, but he link is just too long. What I'm saying is, either the link doesn't actually source the certification directly, or the link is too long, especially when articles are long themselves, this doesn't really help that issue. Is there any possible solution to this problem? Should the RIAA link direct users to the search results, the search option, or the long link? 19:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, if the reference is to the search option is fine, then I guess I'll just continue doing that. As for the long URL, the problem is not only the crazy length, but also actually getting that URL. There's no possible way unless you copy from an article that already has is, and from my knowledge, that's almost none. But if the search is able to get past FAC, I guess I'm good with that. Should I replace the article that has the long URL while I'm at it? 17:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music

Contents

Genre guidelines proposal progress

Slang terms, nicknames and abbreviations

Tagging years in music articles

Leaks

Album certifications

Instructions for using RIAA