Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Infobox debate 6: What happens next?
I'm near my wits end with this discussion, because it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Proponents and opponents of the field have been regurgitating the same bit of info ad nauseum for the past few days; the page is 300kb, for <expletive> sake. What I want to ask is
- 1 )Who eventually gets to decide on this? Will a disinterested party/parties ultimately decide on the concensus that has been reached, and will the editors here be satisfied with the decision.
- 1b) How will this concensus be judged? On the strenght/validity of arguments presented, or on numbers?
- 1c) What qualifies as a valid argument?
- 2) Or are people hoping that there will be acceptance of the infobox as is, when the initial shock and mass hysteria subsides?
- 3)Does this have to go to mediation?
In any case, I have a lot of schoolwork piling up, and midterms in a week, so my participation in this may be minimal. I can only hope people who have the time can fight the good fight. Peace out, for now. Orane (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- since people are saying the previous discussion was too brief & not inclusive enough after nine days, it's probably not too fitting to lose patience with this new discussion after only four days. i believe WP:Consensus#Participating_in_community_discussions might help with some of your questions. have fruitful schoolwork Sssoul (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't completely lost patience; I have lost time. And I just think that nothing new is being said. And as I indicated, I hope discussion continues after me. The link was good, but it doesn't answer everything, particularly question 1a and 3. Orane (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- i reckon the answer to 1a is something like: the idea (or anyway the hope) is that the community of interested parties should be able to find a solution that everyone can accept; trying to come up with something like that might take a while. part of what's going on in the discussion is an effort to come up with ideas that might be acceptable to most of the interested parties. maybe some of the ideas will lead to something people can agree on, but it takes time.
- the answer to number three is probably: time will tell. Sssoul (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't completely lost patience; I have lost time. And I just think that nothing new is being said. And as I indicated, I hope discussion continues after me. The link was good, but it doesn't answer everything, particularly question 1a and 3. Orane (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to draft a guideline for dealing with genres on music articles in the next few days. My intention is to hopefully address most if not all of the concerns people against the infobox genre field have. We could discuss it and build consensus to accept it (and the genre fields) or reject it. That should at least give us all a direction, instead of rehashing the same debates with each other. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I was also thinking of drafting up something similar to the recent notability RFC breaking down the major talking points and stances developed so far during this discussion. This would allow us to better organize this rather fragmented & rambling discussion so that we're focusing on specific aspects & arguments in specific places. You'll probably get to yours first though, WD, as I'm rather busy in real life the next couple of days. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry; I'm busy rewriting an article for a Featured Article Review. Take your time. Although my goal is to craft a proposal that would convince those against the genre field to maybe accept it, so I would hope to have mine done before yours, because then we could possibly just go straight into accepting or rejecting it, instead of prolonging the debate. Hopefully. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, talking a look at all the music guidelines (in the MUSTARD pages) I'm actually kind of unimpressed by what we have. Other projects (the Comics and Film WikiProjects come to mind) have far more authoritative, practical, and informative guidelines for editors to use. I think we might have to create a completely new set of guidelines for music-related articles that distills all the information available into a handy format. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I feel that way too. The more I look at it, the more I get the feeling that the root of this problem is that the various music projects have much less practical & informative guidelines than some other projects, yet their standards have been quickly applied across hundreds of thousands of articles (the fields of music/musicians/albums/songs being one that spreads like wildfire in a project of this nature). When I look at how the projects run and form their guidelines, it's a rather small number of editors contributing to those guidelines, in comparison to the number of actual project members that are active on WP, and the even higher number of editors who aren't project members but still use the templates and apply the project standards. I mean, look at all the hullaballoo here over the musician infobox. Some editors think we should have gotten input from 300+ editors before interpreting a consensus, but the Musicians WikiProject only lists about 95 active members (which seems consistent with the number who are using the project userbox). Out of those 95 or so active members, how many are actually participating in shaping & tweaking the guidelines? Heck the Musicians project itself is only about 2½ years old. So a big part of the problem, I think, is that these projects' guidelines and oversight haven't grown nearly in proportion to their scope in the last couple of years. That's not saying anything against the projects, of course; they do an admirable job considering the mind-boggling number of articles their projects cover, but the task before them is downright Herculean. I mean, 95 (or fewer) active editors in the Musicans project are making decisions that affect, at current count, 543,994 articles. No wonder such a minor change as taking a field out of an infobox provokes such a huge reaction. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, here's what I propose: I create a guideline proposal for how to address genres in music articles (while also hopefully finishing the whole yes/no to genres in infoboxes debate that's consuming this page). Judging on how that is receieved, we can then move on to creating a new list of guidelines for music articles, for which the genre guidelines would be the first component finished. All music WikiProjects, ranging from this one to song and albums to genre to artist-specific ones, will be notified about its development and will be encouraged to give feedback. I'll ask some contributors to other project guidelines to help me out in creating the central guidelines. How's that? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I feel that way too. The more I look at it, the more I get the feeling that the root of this problem is that the various music projects have much less practical & informative guidelines than some other projects, yet their standards have been quickly applied across hundreds of thousands of articles (the fields of music/musicians/albums/songs being one that spreads like wildfire in a project of this nature). When I look at how the projects run and form their guidelines, it's a rather small number of editors contributing to those guidelines, in comparison to the number of actual project members that are active on WP, and the even higher number of editors who aren't project members but still use the templates and apply the project standards. I mean, look at all the hullaballoo here over the musician infobox. Some editors think we should have gotten input from 300+ editors before interpreting a consensus, but the Musicians WikiProject only lists about 95 active members (which seems consistent with the number who are using the project userbox). Out of those 95 or so active members, how many are actually participating in shaping & tweaking the guidelines? Heck the Musicians project itself is only about 2½ years old. So a big part of the problem, I think, is that these projects' guidelines and oversight haven't grown nearly in proportion to their scope in the last couple of years. That's not saying anything against the projects, of course; they do an admirable job considering the mind-boggling number of articles their projects cover, but the task before them is downright Herculean. I mean, 95 (or fewer) active editors in the Musicans project are making decisions that affect, at current count, 543,994 articles. No wonder such a minor change as taking a field out of an infobox provokes such a huge reaction. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- A confession; I don't think I've looked at MUSTARD in the last year, and I've written... quite a few music FAs in that time. I don't recall exactly why I never looked at it but I imagine the relative lack of quality (as noted by those who, evidently, have looked at it!) must have been a factor. Any work on improving it might not get noticed by me, but it sure as heck would make things better for a lot of people, especially newbies whom we direct there. Giggy (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- My intention would be to pull together things highly active music editors like you and I have learned over time and put them together in a new fancy music guidelines page. I mean, half of the FA album articles are a direct result of work done by WP:ALM, and a lot of that probably has to with project members learning from one another and sharing advice on how to write a good album article, rather than going to the Album WikiProject for help. I want to make sure we can share our experience with other music editors. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- New guidelines, interesting. Will you be asking for input/suggestions from these "highly active music editors"? If so, will you only be consulting pro-genre editors (in regard to the genre aspect of your forthcoming proposal)? Or is this something you will build alone? — Realist2 14:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would be asking people who have written a lot of FAs and GAs, ie. you. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- The specifics of my inclusion in the proposals are not important, although I did start this mess. As you can imagine, I never expected my proposal to cause this monster of a debate, I almost expected it to go unanswered altogether (hindsight is a wonderful thing). Seeds do grow into huge forests, oops! I've stayed relatively quiet throughout this, since I don't have much more to say. I would be interested in adding my thoughts, but if not, you need to find some other genre warrior exterminator. — Realist2 23:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would be asking people who have written a lot of FAs and GAs, ie. you. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- New guidelines, interesting. Will you be asking for input/suggestions from these "highly active music editors"? If so, will you only be consulting pro-genre editors (in regard to the genre aspect of your forthcoming proposal)? Or is this something you will build alone? — Realist2 14:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- My intention would be to pull together things highly active music editors like you and I have learned over time and put them together in a new fancy music guidelines page. I mean, half of the FA album articles are a direct result of work done by WP:ALM, and a lot of that probably has to with project members learning from one another and sharing advice on how to write a good album article, rather than going to the Album WikiProject for help. I want to make sure we can share our experience with other music editors. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
So to make sure I don't waste the next few days of my time, does anyone object to me crafting a genre guideline for us to discuss and possibly implement, or are we all cool with it? WesleyDodds (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Would your new genre guideline proposal be different from previous options you brought up? Because I felt they did nothing to solve the issues that fueled the original consensus to remove the field. And they did not address any of the added concerns brought up since the original consensus what put into action. Fair Deal (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Do it, please. I just want the field back. I don't care what new parameters/guidelines are set. That part is to appease WikiAlf, Realist and IllaZilla. And Fair Deal, please stop referring to the four-editor agreement as a consensus, as it clearly was not. If you don't know what a consensus is, Wikipedia describes it. See bolded comment below. Orane (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- My proposal would incorporate the items I listed before. However, the proposal will be expanded address the topic of genres in articles as a whole, not just the infobox. I would aim to address how to deal with genre in infoboxes, the lead, and categories, what sources to consider, how ot tackle genres in "musical style" sections, and point out trouble areas that might confuse editors. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- With that broad of a scope would it not be better to apply your proposal towards a larger community effort to expand and improve WP:MUSTARD as an overall guideline for music articles. Rather than just limit it to attempting to save a subjective field from an infobox. I just feel, as most editors feel, that the problem with creating rules for a field that attracts people who are ruled by their own opinion is that, in the end, those editors won't ever follow the rules no matter what they are. It would be easier to create a better more binding MoS for text contained in music pages themselves. Rather than an opinion checkbox. I've already mentioned it in an earlier post. Would the alternative rock project be willing to give up placing 'alternative rock' in the genre field? Would the heavy metal project be willing to give up adding heavy metal(or any of its dozens of sub-styles) in their infobox genre fields in favor of just using rock as the genre entry? I doubt the members of either of those, or any other style-specfic music project would be willing to give up adding their own project 'flag' to the genre field. Even though it would be for the overall good of Wikipedia. Fair Deal (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- To other editors: I left a message on Fair Deal's talk page about this because he wasn't sure if I saw it. Many of his points were already addressed in previous comments I made above. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- With that broad of a scope would it not be better to apply your proposal towards a larger community effort to expand and improve WP:MUSTARD as an overall guideline for music articles. Rather than just limit it to attempting to save a subjective field from an infobox. I just feel, as most editors feel, that the problem with creating rules for a field that attracts people who are ruled by their own opinion is that, in the end, those editors won't ever follow the rules no matter what they are. It would be easier to create a better more binding MoS for text contained in music pages themselves. Rather than an opinion checkbox. I've already mentioned it in an earlier post. Would the alternative rock project be willing to give up placing 'alternative rock' in the genre field? Would the heavy metal project be willing to give up adding heavy metal(or any of its dozens of sub-styles) in their infobox genre fields in favor of just using rock as the genre entry? I doubt the members of either of those, or any other style-specfic music project would be willing to give up adding their own project 'flag' to the genre field. Even though it would be for the overall good of Wikipedia. Fair Deal (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- My proposal would incorporate the items I listed before. However, the proposal will be expanded address the topic of genres in articles as a whole, not just the infobox. I would aim to address how to deal with genre in infoboxes, the lead, and categories, what sources to consider, how ot tackle genres in "musical style" sections, and point out trouble areas that might confuse editors. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is now more or less unreadable. It's been chaotic. WesleyDodds should read WP:Process is important. Without a process it's impossible to have an outcome when a lot of people are involved. If you still want to take an initiative - and you are willing to act as a neutral chair rather than as a protagonist - you should start a proper centralized discussion. See how to do it here: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. You can then draft your proposals. However it has to be laid out properly, in clear, neutral English allowing for (and encouraging) a range of differing responses. (Some self-discipline is required). If you don't want to be a neutral chair (which is fine) you should get someone else to start and run the centralized discussion. --Kleinzach 02:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I agree. The page is now unreadable. It's impossible to find a clear outcome. Funny thing, though. People speak of process being important, and centralized discussions and the like. I wonder where these ideals were when the field was removed... Orane (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Given everyone's largely arguing in circles at this point, I thought I'd try and do something to move use forward. I do want a process by which we can settle this problem. So my intention is to craft a proposal, then we create a new, centralized discussion for it. Also, notice the link about centralized discussion is about polices, not guidelines. We're dealing with proposed guidelines, not policies here, and guidelines are much mroe flexible. I want to provide a "user's guide" to help editors address genre in music articles. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Editing guidelines are normally discussed and written up at the project level. In this case many projects are involved so it has to be done at a higher level. The original editors who started the discussion thought WikiProject Music - as an umbrella page - would be a good location, but we were proved wrong. So it will be necessary to go up a level. --Kleinzach 02:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- How high are you expecting him to go, really? This doesn't make a lick of sense. It's so easy for people to remove the field, but we have to "respect process" and go up innumerable levels just to get it back? How exactly are we supposed to "go up a level"? What does this entail? Why the double standard? Orane (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- How? What? Why? See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion ("You may create any page of the form Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Some topic if it does not appear that any particular existing talk page is the correct place for a policy-related discussion.") I don't think there's a double standard. It's the way WP works. Nothing is ever discussed at the point of creation (of the infobox field or whatever). Decisions thereafter become progressively more difficult. Once people start quoting WP:Consensus at each other you can be sure that the discussion has reached the point where it's become impossible. The only way to get things back on the rails is to have a good, trusted process. (That's how politics works, incidentally). --Kleinzach 03:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- My intention is to do just that, although I will write a draft of the proposed guidelines on a user page first. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- What happens if WD's suggestions are opposed? A few editors are just aching to come up with ifs/ands/buts and atypical situations to contravene the proposal. Will that be the end of it all? I can say this: it's a direct breach of policies to make the genre removal permanent, since people has not agreed to it. Orane (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- People can oppose my proposed guidelines when I present them if they like; that's the point. I'm just trying to set up a way we can determine a new consensus. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- What happens if WD's suggestions are opposed? A few editors are just aching to come up with ifs/ands/buts and atypical situations to contravene the proposal. Will that be the end of it all? I can say this: it's a direct breach of policies to make the genre removal permanent, since people has not agreed to it. Orane (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- My intention is to do just that, although I will write a draft of the proposed guidelines on a user page first. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- How? What? Why? See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion ("You may create any page of the form Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Some topic if it does not appear that any particular existing talk page is the correct place for a policy-related discussion.") I don't think there's a double standard. It's the way WP works. Nothing is ever discussed at the point of creation (of the infobox field or whatever). Decisions thereafter become progressively more difficult. Once people start quoting WP:Consensus at each other you can be sure that the discussion has reached the point where it's become impossible. The only way to get things back on the rails is to have a good, trusted process. (That's how politics works, incidentally). --Kleinzach 03:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- How high are you expecting him to go, really? This doesn't make a lick of sense. It's so easy for people to remove the field, but we have to "respect process" and go up innumerable levels just to get it back? How exactly are we supposed to "go up a level"? What does this entail? Why the double standard? Orane (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Editing guidelines are normally discussed and written up at the project level. In this case many projects are involved so it has to be done at a higher level. The original editors who started the discussion thought WikiProject Music - as an umbrella page - would be a good location, but we were proved wrong. So it will be necessary to go up a level. --Kleinzach 02:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, my proposal will proabably take me until the weekend to finish. Once I started considering the topic of genres beyond the infoboxes and started tackling the lead sections for different sorts of articles, things got complicated. Here's hoping my brain doesn't melt while I try to figure this all out. Sorry about the delays. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Infobox debate 7: A simple proposal by Timmeh
In answer to the question posed in the previous section header, I say we do three things:
1. Revert the removal of the genre field in the artist and album infoboxes. Why? Because adequate consensus was not reached. Take a look at the lead paragraph on WP:Consensus:"Consensus is part of a range of policies on how editors work with others, and part of the Fourth pillar of Wikipedia code of conduct. Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages." Notice the sentences in bold. A seven person consensus (with one opposing) is not nearly enough to rightly determine a change to a guideline or template. For a consensus to occur, there must be adequate exposure to the community; there wasn't.
2. Start a new discussion on the issue of removing the genre field, and if an adequate consensus is reached to remove the field, then it shall be removed. If no consensus is reached within a set amount of time, the genres must be left intact. Also, this discussion must be widely publicized on artist/album/song related WikiProjects and maybe even on the main page. I am almost certain that, if adequately publicized, the new discussion will include many more viewers, and many more are needed in a discussion of a proposal to implement such a big change to thousands of articles.
3. Implement the removal when and if a consensus is reached to do so, and adequately notify the appropriate editing community of the decision. If there are editors that later disagree with the new implementation, they may start a new discussion and follow steps 2 and 3. Timmeh! 15:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments on the "simple proposal"
Having had this much discussion inlcuding enough feedback to actually make improvements to fix what is broken, starting all over again will be utterly infuriating for all parties involved. Even the most vocal of those editors demanding to have the genre field back in the infobox is content to re-instate it per Wesley Dodd's ideas. If the change is merely reverted and thus reinstate the genre field without any change to the guidance supporting it, I and many others would feel that we must then enforce WP:V individually across many thousands of pages it affects, rather like TTN enforces WP:V by mass action - this would end with no net profit - the encyclopedia looses the genres in the vast majority of cases anyway with little chance for improvement, left to proceed I believe the encyclopedia gets to re-instate the genre field and satisfy those who are unhappy with it's current state with guidance in place to improve the quality of the encyclopedia by treating the information correctly.--Alf melmac 16:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- agree with Alf - the RfC that's already going on was started only three days ago, and people are addressing the issues. but if you feel the RfC should be publicized on more project pages, yeah by all means publicize it! Sssoul (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's not exactly what Timmeh was suggesting. He is suggesting something that I've argued for quite some times, but have conveniently been avoided by others. He, like myself, is saying that since the genre field was reverted without proper consensus, then that makes the change null. It should therefore be reverted to it's original version. Once back to this version, discussion — which is already underway— should continue with the opposers of the field trying to show just cause why the field should be removed; supporters of the genre field should not be working tirelessly and effortlessly to convince editors to put the field back when it was underhandedly removed in the first place. And, as usual, I don't expect a response to this comment; it always seem to make people dumbfounded. Orane (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Orane is correct. I do not oppose removing the genre field as long as it is done after proper consensus among the Wikipedia community is reached. The agreement between the original seven editors after a long discussion is not a consensus. There are two main problems with the original "consensus". First, this discussion was not widely publicized, if at all. I was not aware of it, and I do pay attention to these kinds of discussions. Almost every editor that has joined since the original "consensus" was made was not aware of the original discussion and so-called "consensus. Second, this non-publicized discussion ended in just seven editors agreeing to the proposal to remove the genre field. You must remember that a change this large effects thousands of individual articles, and it makes a huge impact on the Wikipedia community. Obviously, this is an ongoing discussion, and I propose that we set a certain amount of time (2 or 3 weeks) that we have to come up with a valid consensus to remove the genre field. If the consensus is not reached in that time, the field should be restored. Timmeh! 22:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree with this, obviously, as I have indicated above that with respect to the album infobox, particularly, there was insufficient consensus for the removal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Another indignant comment
I am shocked by the removal of genre field from artist, album etc. infoboxes. This was not properly announced, so most editors, including myself, found it out when this terrible thing had already happend.
There are plenty of sources for any artist's genre. Like allmusic.com and other similiar sites.
Just because there are few edits wars involving editors who don't understand what reliable sources are, it does not mean we should get rid of this extremely helpful field. We Russians call it "using artillery to get rid of sparrows", but a better expression would probably be "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".
As can be easily seen, there are a lot of editors who are unsatisfied with such move. Thus I demand the resumption of this discussion. Netrat (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Most conversations regarding sourcing for genres on the template page and other project pages have said that Allmusic should NOT be used as a reference since Allmusic distinguishes genre from style. Something Wikipedia doesn't do. The best option was, and still is, remove the field completely. And, so far, no counter-arguments or alternatives have come up on this page to sway from that original consensus. Fair Deal (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I cannot see why "Something Wikipedia doesn't do." means "Allmusic should NOT be used as a reference since Allmusic distinguishes genre from style." For most Wikipedia articles, genre field is identical to AMG's style field. If you want to be more generic, you can only include AMG's genre. And since AMG's styles are sub-divisions of AMG's genres, nothing prevents you from listing "Genre: amg_genre, amg_style1, amg_style2" or "Genre: amg_genre (amg_style1, amg_style2)". Also, I'm not suggesting using AMG as the only source. There always are other sources like artist's web-site, album reviews (some professional magazines classify albums by very narrow styles), etc. etc. etc. Finally, most articles do not have genre-related edit wars. And by the way (as already said), I do (to some gegree) support the idea of having two separate fields for general meta-genre (or genre) and genre (or style, what is currently considered a genre - just like AMG. Netrat (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Allmusic is a reliable source. However, they shouldn't be the only source ever used in an article. After all, any source can be wrong from time to time. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- My point was that 2 separate discussion/consensus were reached on the talk pages of this project as well as a consensus on the talk page of WP:RS itself that allmusic was not to be used as a genre reference. Are we throwing those consensus discussions out along with the current consensus over genre fields? Fair Deal (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Provide a link to these discussions, please. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- My point was that 2 separate discussion/consensus were reached on the talk pages of this project as well as a consensus on the talk page of WP:RS itself that allmusic was not to be used as a genre reference. Are we throwing those consensus discussions out along with the current consensus over genre fields? Fair Deal (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Allmusic is a reliable source. However, they shouldn't be the only source ever used in an article. After all, any source can be wrong from time to time. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I cannot see why "Something Wikipedia doesn't do." means "Allmusic should NOT be used as a reference since Allmusic distinguishes genre from style." For most Wikipedia articles, genre field is identical to AMG's style field. If you want to be more generic, you can only include AMG's genre. And since AMG's styles are sub-divisions of AMG's genres, nothing prevents you from listing "Genre: amg_genre, amg_style1, amg_style2" or "Genre: amg_genre (amg_style1, amg_style2)". Also, I'm not suggesting using AMG as the only source. There always are other sources like artist's web-site, album reviews (some professional magazines classify albums by very narrow styles), etc. etc. etc. Finally, most articles do not have genre-related edit wars. And by the way (as already said), I do (to some gegree) support the idea of having two separate fields for general meta-genre (or genre) and genre (or style, what is currently considered a genre - just like AMG. Netrat (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Archive 6 on this page has one discussion. There is another here, and here, and here. It's mentioned here. Wiki-google search shows a few more where it is brought up inside other discussions as well. Fair Deal (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- So, in essence, you call a long discussion among 3 people "concensus". Hmm. Again, you probably need to read up on what consensus is. Orane (talk) 03:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, consensus was reached: on display in the Wikipedia cellar, with the lights gone, and also the stairs, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, in an disused lavatory, with a sign on the door saying, "Beware of the leopard". Chalk another vote for me for Strongly Oppose the removal of genre. dejaphoenix (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- The arguments on those pages are largely that Allmusic is not a reliable source for metal articles (started by the same editor repeating the same points in the first two links), while editors are claming the Rough Guide books are reliable sources, which really aren't, because they don't define genres; they just list biographies and recommended albums. I have the Rough Guide to Rock book but I never use it as a source because there are much, much better sources out there. Comparing it with the other sources on the genre I've perused, Allmusic is a decent source for metal, really, but like I said, it shouldn't be your only frame of reference. And for God's sake don't use Encyclopedia Metallium or whatever; those are user-based. None of those RS discussions seem to have been settled; they just petered out. The infobox discussion basically says we're not going to change the way we showcase genres in the infobox to fit the way Allmusic does it, which I agree with, because then it gives too much creedence to one source. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am a frequent Wikipedier and someone who uses Wikipedia's genre listing as a source and a way to help me label my own music library. I don't use what Wikipedia says as a be-all-end-all but I do use it to help me figure out where I should be looking and what others are thinking and how a music genre is defined. I think this whole thing is nonsense. The articles on genre still list artists. According to the three person consensus on here, genre is illegal because it is up for debate and has no place on the 100% Factual Wikipedia that can't have room for an ounce of doubt. What I remember of genres, artists had multiple genres listed for them, and albums had separate genres listed depending on what happened, and most of the time albums and even songs had multiple genres listed. I don't see the problem. This is just a bunch of nonsense. Bring the genres back. I'm sorry I don't have a name or know how to end my entries, I am sure someone else will do it. I just know that my voice is as important as anyone else's here, and I don't know why a few people fighting over what genre something is a good reason to destroy the whole system. If anything, just add multiple genres to them and everyone is happy. And if they aren't, then their life has more issues than just fighting over genre issues. The end. Bring the genres back and let's call this quits. A few people decided they were tired of fights and they removed the genre. They did not make widely known they were doing this, and they are obviously in the minority. All this has done is caused more fighting anyway. Whatever metal genre issues are out there can be resolved by other means, but a band, an album, a song's genre is much too important to not include in the info box. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.127.155 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Amen, brother, we hear you. Couldn't have said it better myself. Orane (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- WOW you grasp for support even when it comes from an IP sockpuppet? The Real Libs-speak politely 17:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Prove that! Support is support, my friend. I guess that many of us think that because we have accounts, we have the right to control WP (hint hint :P), but anons contribute a lot too. You should know that...Orane (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I know more than anyone else how absolutely perfect an IP editor can be. But after 4+ years and nearly 60000 edits... I can smell when someone has the top drawer of their dresser open. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Would you like to meet me face to face to see that I'm a real person? Or will signing up for a Wikipedia account be enough for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.127.155 (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I know more than anyone else how absolutely perfect an IP editor can be. But after 4+ years and nearly 60000 edits... I can smell when someone has the top drawer of their dresser open. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Prove that! Support is support, my friend. I guess that many of us think that because we have accounts, we have the right to control WP (hint hint :P), but anons contribute a lot too. You should know that...Orane (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- WOW you grasp for support even when it comes from an IP sockpuppet? The Real Libs-speak politely 17:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Amen, brother, we hear you. Couldn't have said it better myself. Orane (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)