Statement of issue. On October 8th, the "genre" section was removed from Template:Album infobox, simultaneously with the removal of the "genre" section from Template:Infobox Musical artist. This RFC is to determine whether consensus exists for the removal of that section specifically from Template:Infobox Album. 20:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have merged the subsections I created here after it was pointed out to me at my talk page that individuals might be missing the comments section. I will notify individuals who contributed to the now merged first section in case of objections. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

These sections were removed following conversation above, but due to an unfortunate error in wikilinking, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums was not advised of the debate which therefore may not have received as much input from interested contributors as it should have to form proper consensus. I believe that wider discussion is necessary to establish if there is consensus to remove the genre field from the album infobox, a change that will impact something in the neighborhood of 70,000 articles. (Somebody who can easily tell how many are transcluded could be more precise than that; I am going by the number of articles tagged with wikiproject album, and I know from firsthand experience that not every album article is so tagged.) Since there may be different considerations for each, I believe that the templates should be discussed separately.

Identification of albums by genre is industry standard, as noted both by the usage practices at AMG and the subdivisions of Billboard charts. Record stores and radio stations frequently subdivide by genre, particularly in the broadest categories of classical music, jazz, country music, etc. I believe that reference to genre therefore is important information to the album infobox and is just as relevant and useful there as it is in Template:Infobox Single, Template:Infobox Book or Template:Infobox Television. (I will note, though, that there is not universal application of genre. It isn't found in Template:Infobox Film or Template:Infobox Sculpture, for instance.)

Although I understand that edit warring on some articles is a serious concern, I am personally of the opinion that if action is necessary on the template to discourage edit warring, a less-drastic measure than removal should first be tried, including possibly community consensus on major genres acceptable for use in infoboxes. I am not convinced that removal of this line will stop edit warring, since the information will remain in the body of the article. Multi-genre albums, like Shania Twain's Up!, can easily bear multiple genres in the infobox (as it did). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I just took a look at some album and artist articles I knew I would not have a clue about; I was lost. It would be impossible to move every single genre label from the infobox to the lead or prose. This entire discussion is fundamentally flawed and has not presented any logical points to convince me to support the deletion of the information. Therefore, it should be reinstated immediately. NSR77 ^T_C 03:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If something isn't presented or can't be presented in the article's prose, what the heck is it doing in the infobox to begin with? The infobox is a brief summary of data from the article, it cannot and should not have information in it that is not mentioned anywhere within the article's prose. I think you're seriously misconstruing the purpose of an infobox. An infobox is a supplement to an article, it does not stand on its own. If you read an album or artist article and were "lost" in trying to discern what genre it fit into, then those articles have serious problems that an infobox field can't fix. It is not impossible to move genre labels from the infobox into the article's prose, it is in fact quite simple, and it shouldn't even be necessary because they should already be present, explained, and referenced in the article's prose to begin with. Otherwise what you're looking at is original research and should be removed anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You know what I find stupid? That an infobox from a Music Project gives every bit of information about a music, except for what kind of music it ultimately is. We have album length, producers etc. but the most basic info of all: the actual music, is missing. Unthinkable. And yes, we're gonna have to wade through lengthy prose to find genres. Many articles here beings "X is a song by American singer XX. It was released as the first single from his second album....." Where do we find genres here? How far do we dig? Ideally, articles should list genre explicitly, but the fact is that they just don't— or not as clearly as the infobox would. Orane (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to read an article in order to find out information about its subject, then I have no idea what you're doing reading an encyclopedia. You seem to think that all the essential information has to be summed up in a box on the right in bullet-point form; that you shouldn't have to actually read the article in order to learn anything substantial about its subject. In either a musical artist or an album article, there should be some referenced discussion of the subject's musical genre and/or styles. Ideally this should be in its own section, and therefore you can easily locate it via the table of contents if you're not inclined to actually read through the article. In any case it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead, which should be concise to begin with. If you don't see some mention of genre in the lead, fix it. The infobox shouldn't have to compensate for a poorly-written article; that's not its purpose. Encyclopedias don't present their information in the form of sound bytes and bullet-points. An infobox is a supplement, a concise and handy summation of facts. It does not make or break the article as a whole. If it does, then you've got an article with serious, serious issues that need fixing. We have plenty of featured articles that don't even have infoboxes (see [1], [2], and [3] for examples). Put yourself in the shoes of a reader looking at a FA-class musician article: It's got an infobox with the basic facts, it's got a lead section that summarizes the main points of the article in a couple of concise paragraphs, and it's got a table of contents to show you what the rest of the sections are and help you jump to specific ones. We do everything but read the darn thing to you out loud (hell, we even do that sometimes). How much easier to we have to make it? Do we have to continue stuffing content into the infobox in bullet-point form until the box is bigger than the article body? Of course I'm exaggerating, but you've just said that "an infobox from a Music Project gives every bit of information about a music", which is absolutely false. It gives very basic information. The album infobox, for example, doesn't include a track listing, doesn't include writing credits, doesn't include a list of performers...in fact it doesn't include most of what's in the body of the article. Nor should it. These are things which common sense tells us are better left in the body and prose of the article, even though none of them are anywhere near as subjective or subject to disputes as genre. You know what I find stupid? That there is this prevailing attitude that we must list genres in the infobox, otherwise the article is fatally remiss and cannot possibly be understood by any reader. That's completely beyond me and totally counterintuitive to the process of actually writing a good article. Are these articles [4] [5] [6] difficult to understand because they don't mention genre in the infobox? Not at all. In fact, all 3 of them mention genres and styles within the first few sentences, with references, context, and brilliant prose, and all of them have sections explicitly devoted to the genre and style that you can easily jump to via the table of contents. The infobox is a poor, poor place to try to summarize this kind of information, and the reader is not well-served by having information on genre and style reduced to bullet-points-in-a-box. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Still hasn't convinced me. And point of info: not everyone who visits a page has the time/intent to read through it, especially long ones. If you can't summarize the style of music in a music information box, then what's the point of it? One could argue that the infobox itself really isn't that necessary then. Orane (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

PS:And to add to that, this is an instance where the purpose has surpassed the intent. In your opinion, the intent of the infobox was to list x, y, but not z. Well, the purpose of the infobox is now used as a quick determinant of x, y, and z, whether you like it or not. Deal with it and go from there. And the examples you provided are brilliant. If this field remains absent, I'd love to see you working on the brilliant prose in the tens of thousands of music articles that sadly don't follow those models. Orane (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to convince you, you're very entrenched in your opinion. But you said some things that I felt were too blatantly wrong not to rebut. But again, if a reader doesn't have the time or intent to even read a lead paragraph, then I'm not sure what they're doing reading an encyclopedia in the first place. This decision shouldn't be about pandering to readers with short attention spans, or those who don't intend to read any of the article's prose. And my point was exactly that: an infobox isn't a necessity. It's a supplement, a handy tool. Therefore we should limit its coverage to data that is straightforward, objective, uncontroversial, and impossible to misconstrue. When the musician infobox was proposed 2½ years ago it was going to contain similar subjective fields like "notable albums" and "notable songs", but it was decided that these were not very NPOV nor clear so they were removed before the template actually went into use. They were even close to cutting "Associated acts" on the same grounds. Aren't "notable albums" and "notable songs" just as important to a summation of an artist as genre? Wouldn't they all rely on the same types of sources? And yet they were deemed inappropriate to the infobox. Genre has the exact same fundamental problems, yet nobody voiced a concern about it. As I've said, if I'd been active in the project back then I probably would have advised against including genre in the first place. I've always thought it wasn't a good choice of field for an infobox, but then hindsight is 20/20. Just because something's been a certain way for some time doesn't mean it can't (or shouldn't) change. Most of Wikipedia's policies went through just this kind of evolution, where they were practiced one way for a long time until it was decided an overhaul was needed. Sure, the changes had ripples, but as a result we have clearer policies and guidelines and an overall better encyclopedia. We don't have to "deal with it" jsut because it's been a certain way for a couple of years. As you yourself have pointed out, consensus can change. That's exactly what's going on here. As to your last point, the infobox is not substitute for a poor article. One of Wikipedia's primary goals is to improve articles and advance them to higher standards and status. Don't use the infobox, much less a single field in it, as an excuse for tens of thousands of poor articles. The genre field cannot possible make or break these articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys, right now we're discussing the consensus and how appropriate it was. Continue debating your viewpoints in the appropriate sections. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't understanding the genre field pertinant to an end result of consensus? The overall topic is the the genre field itself. Moonriddengirl's second paragraph of this section does just this. IllaZilla's expanation is quite eloquent. It should be considered a valid portion of the overall debate. Please respect. - Steve3849 ^talk 15:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the genre is more important to albums than bands. Bands tend to shift genre, while albums are more stable (naturally). Additionally, band pages tend to be more fully written out, and thus the genre information is at least available, even if hard to find. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of album pages which contain very little information about the genre except what used to be in the genre field. Were these poorly written? Perhaps, but the fact remains that they exist. Genre is basic information anyway. A few highly controversial edit wars is not a good reason to do a blanket removal, depriving non-controversial articles of very useful information. I support the reinstatement of genre in the album infobox. --darolew 04:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

i wouldn't be able to support i oppose the reinstatement of the genre field to the album info-boxes without knowing what unless/until clear, practical and enforceable guidelines are proposed adopted for it. by "clear guidelines" i mean ones that are clear to editors who imitate what they see, not only to those who read policies and guidelines. at the same time, an encyclopedia has different standards than record charts, music shops or radio stations, and it's obviously important that the info-box shouldn't misrepresent the music, either through overgeneralized "short lists of approved genres" or through ill-conceived unsourced POV edits. i understand the appeal of listing one or two genres in the info-box in very clear-cut cases, but i still feel that discussing the genres represented on an album is better left for the body of the article, where details/nuances can be duly noted, varying viewpoints and genre definitions can be duly presented and reliable sources can be properly cited. Sssoul (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What I've outlined about would be the starting point, but yes, if we are to keep the genre field, we need guidelines for it, which we didn't have before. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No genre's, as already agreed: Edit warring is already down and the vast majority still support the proposal. A few editors have made there feelings felt but many of the opposing comments come from those who have a vested interest in genres on Wikipedia and instantly noticed their favorite toy was missing. — Realist² 19:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Realist, don't classify nor belittle me. I'm concerned about genre because it's basic information about music. Not because I consider it a toy.Orane (talk)

  • I'm not belittling you. You are one of the ones that have "made their feelings felt", you are not one of the many opposers who have lost their toy. — Realist² 19:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please allow me to reiterate here that the agreement was between a small group of editors and hence not an accurate representation of consensus, which requires "adequate exposure to the community". That guideline policy also indicates that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." This line has been present in the template since 2004, and this conversation was not raised at the template talk or, due to the error I mentioned, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. Hence, I do not believe that the agreement of the few editors who contributed here constituted sufficient exposure to reflect community consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely it would have been better if a neutral party started this comment? It's just that mostly one side of the argument is doing the canvassing part. — Realist² 19:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm slightly flummoxed by the question. :) Are editors disallowed to request comment because they have an opinion? Are they required to wait for a neutral party to wander by, notice the issue, and invite wider community input for them? :) If you find my listing, here, non-neutral, please let me know so that it can be addressed. If you are suggesting that I have canvassed, I would really appreciate your pointing out where. My notices of this conversation have, so far as I'm aware, been limited, neutral, non-partisan and open: here, here, and here. I believe they're all well within WP:CANVASS. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just saying that it's only one collective side of this doing the canvassing and it seems that side intends to win by screaming louder. A comment like this should have presented both sides of the argument 50/50, but it clearly verges pro genre. There is also the concern that certain groups were contacted that might be, lets say, "sympathetic to the plight of the brotherhood of genres". — Realist² 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

what i've seen on other RfCs is that the person who requested it usually is the one who makes the first statement, then someone firmly on the "other side" can add a "Rebuttal", then comes the "Comments" section. i don't consider my comment a rebuttal, which is why i put it under the "Comments" heading (thanks for fixing that, by the way!) but obviously someone can add a "Rebuttal" section in between. Sssoul (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. I'm not deeply familiar with these. As I indicated, I've been involved in three that I know of (and two of them as I recall brought no responses). I've added a neutral non-signed "statement of issues" which contains I think all of the information that isn't disputed. I looked for a quote on the purpose of the removal, but could not find a clear one. If my note should be sectioned into "Against" and somebody add a "For", then that's certainly fine with me. The only group that I contacted was Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, who as far as I know should not be expected to have any group stance on "the brotherhood of genres". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, i'm not all that experienced at RfCs either, but that's what i've seen. maybe you should add a heading to what's now your "sub-statement" entitling it "statement in favour of reinstating the genre field to album info-boxes", so that it's clearly identified as not the part that's neutral. then someone else can add the "rebuttal" and it'll be clear what they're rebutting. Sssoul (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

All right. I've sectioned it off. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree that Wikiepdia is, and should be different from the various publications, but:

1. Genre is probably one of the most basic information about music, and should be easily identifiable in a box about the music in question.
2. Edit wars have not occured in the 80,000+ articles that probably fall under the project, so the removal of the field across the board is unjustified.
3. There is absolutely no guarantee that removal of the field would lead to decrease in edit wars. If anything, more will accus when the editors beging saturating the introduction with the genres that were listed in the infobox.
4. Removal of the field was unjustified in the first place, since by Wikipedia's definition, a "community wide concensus" includes more than 5 people.
5. Find ways to deal with the problem surrounding the subject. Deleting the subject itslef solves nothing.
6. Genres are not subjective to the point that they should be sourced. Find ways to enforce this. Orane (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, and obviously, I disagree. "Genre" is open to interpretation, wherever it appears. Whereas it would be wonderful to have pigeon-holes into which "everything", including art and music, could be conveniently thrust (although it escapes me as to why such labelling is considered either necessary or desirable), in practical terms it cannot work like that. When a so-called reliable source such as AllMusic cannot be consistent about genre, it is even less trustworthy about "style", of which it cannot be said to be authoritative, listing numerous styles even for a single track. That is why I believe that any mention of "genre", wherever it appears in Wikipedia, is at best culturally biased by the prevailing culture (surprise!). We aren't here to construct a blog, fanzine or even an encyclopedia for today; we are here to preserve knowledge, in the form of verifiable facts, for those who follow us. In a hundred years' time, our article on the pyramids of Egypt may still represent the best distillation of knowledge as we understand it; conversely, although Cyndi Lauper may not be with us then, we will be leaving behind a record. The problem historians have in general is the lack of sources, or the misinterpretation thereof. Our policies are constructed to as to avoid that doubt. In this situation, please let us not try to classify beyond that which cannot be reasonably sustained. That, essentially, is what this debate is about. --Rodhullandemu 21:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So what if genre is a cultural construct? You could apply that statement to many things. Music is also a cultural construct. Writing, language, almost every damn thing is cultural and relative. But in our culture various sounds, melodies and instrumentations and other innumerable elements of music are ascribed to certain generalities— genres— that many cultures recognize. Rock music, regardless of the culture in which it is heard, is rock music. A writer pointing that out is not showing bias in any way. Wikipedia is not showing bias by attributing sources. To say, "according to AMG, The Beatles is a rock group" doesn't mean we think it is rock music; it means that in our culture, the particular source says that this music fits this genre, based on its components. If another source states that they are Pop, then we reference that too. It's all about attribution, my friend, since everything is cultural and relative. And to correct you, yes, a single song can have various styles: "Bohemian Rhapsody", is a perfect example. To list many genres isn't to suggest inconsistency. Wikiepdia isn't out to change the world with factual statements that transcends time. Since writing is a cultural construct, it is inveterately biased, and try as we might, we can never overcome this. And I fail to see how removing an infobox field accomplishes this end. Orane (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's previous thoughts have persuaded me that further discussion is certainly needed for the album template. I remain pro removal of the field in the artist box. As quite rightly mentioned is the fact that industries choose to classify albums into genres and sub-genres and the 'public response' to an album is it having a chart position or not (the argument of the charts being a true testing of a population's likes aside). AMG is frequently used to provide 'star ratings' and basic information (the argument of them truly sucking and being as wildly inaccurate as IMDb who are also regularly referenced aside) and it's for inclusion when the artist comments on the genre either generally or specifically. When a 'respected expert' writes it up in an article or in a book, that's for inclusion as well. Question is, if we are to have the genre in the info box on the album, where is the line about which or how many of those are drawn? If the decision is to maintain genres in the album boxes my vote would be for the chart(s) the album was 'put' in. That seems to me to be the only definitive classification we could choose or we go into subjective-land, editors could be encouraged to add AMG type classification(s), artist's comments on classification(s) etc. in prose, where the values of the classifications can be assessed by the reader.

This could be definitely something we could do, at least in the short term until we figure out the best possible solution. Another thing to look at is removed editing rights temporarily or permanently for users who constantly challenge the info box with specific instructions and such.(talk) 14:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring/vandalism doesn't figure into the argument as far as I'm concerned, it might be an appreciated side-effect of us making the right decisions now, but it is not the heart of the matter.--Alf ^melmac 19:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

basing the genre field on what chart categories were assigned to an album is an interesting concept, but:

1] do you mean Billboard charts? (some interesting history there, well worth reading, not only for the purposes of this discussion. are the categories Billboard lists adequate for wikipedia purposes, and [see question 2] have they always been? are Billboard's charts international enough, and have they always been? and so on.)

2] would the field list current chart categories or the categories that existed when the album came out?

3] what would the info-box say for albums that haven't charted at all - or that were issued prior to the existence of album charts - would the field just be omitted in those cases?

4] if the field states what charts an album appeared in, shouldn't it be called something like "chart(s)" rather than "genre(s)"? we don't want to misrepresent the nature of the information given. Sssoul (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

1} I meant whichever chart(s) were appropriate to the album's release and distribution.

2] If the album has been in a categorised chart before, listing those genres categorised in date order seems natural.

3] Omitted if not mentioned in any chart.

4] I believe we already include info on the position an album or single charted to, the information would be better placed there, and with it an appropriate genre tag is not beyond the possible.--Alf ^melmac 21:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks for clarifying, Alf. by question 2 i meant: Billboard and the UK charts (and no doubt other charts too) have changed their categories quite a few times over the decades. R&B is my favourite example - what it means now is very different from what it meant in 1960, and that was different than what it meant in 1949; also, the category was dropped completely from Billboard charts for a decade or two. if an album came out in 1960, would it be categorized as R&B if that's what it was by the standards of 1960, even though that would be inexplicable to someone familiar only with the current "Contemporary R&B" definition? and what about an album that came out prior to 1949, which is the year Billboard changed the name of the category from "Harlem Hit Parade" to "R&B"? i think you see the problems that can arise ...

and by question 4 i didn't mean the genre field should list the chart position; i meant that the field shouldn't be called "genre(s)" if what it represents is actually the album's designation(s) for chart purposes. particular "genre-like chart categories" are indeed listed in at least some "chart" sections, but i take it that's not enough to satisfy the people who want the "genre(s)" field back; would moving that information to the info-box (instead of a "genre(s)" field, i mean) help any? (smile: just looking at the effects of that on albums i'm particularly interested in, i seriously doubt that would be a popular move!) Sssoul (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I had to sleep on this. Would the problems you highlight be widespread or a small and possibly acceptable amount? If it's widespread then I'm back to square one - if the only definitive data set is not useful for this purpose, why bother with it at all, still very much on the fence here wanting to find something acceptable but not getting near it yet.--Alf ^melmac 05:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Alf, i agree with the idea of having the info-box contain only objective data, and moving chart information to the info-box still sounds more promising to me than the reinstatement of a subjective genre field, but it needs clear guidelines. what guidelines exist now for the "chart" sections of album pages? are there already clearcut guidelines for what charts are notable enough to include - for example if i can demonstrate that Let It Bleed went to number 3 on the 1969 East Geelong Music Bunker Holiday Album Hit Parade (as well it might have!), can i add that to the info-box or not? and so on.

the question of what name to use for the chart - i slept on this one too, and it seems plain to me that we'd use the name of the chart at the time the album appeared, whether it's currently PC or not, and whether or not it communicates anything about the musical styles on the album. the field would be entitled "chart(s)" or "chart position(s)", not "genre(s)".

another potential problem is the historically inaccurate way the Billboard website presents the part of its archives that are accessible for free. in 1966 there was no category called "R&B/Hip-Hop Albums" but Billboard's site makes it appear that there was. expressly stating in whatever guidelines are created that this section of Billboard's own site isn't a historically accurate source isn't hard, but it might need a lot of reiteration if people don't want The Temptations' '60s albums (for example) categorized as hip-hop.

i don't know how to answer your question about how widespread the problems would be. with albums by artists whose articles i work on a lot, i reckon the problems are not insurmountable. maybe other people in the discussion could let us know what it would mean for albums by the artists whose pages they focus on. Sssoul (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is an interesting direction with some valuable ideas. I also think the Temptations should most definitely not be categorized as hip-hop. :D In 1966, the category was called "Black Albums". Listing the genre as "Black" is problematic for other reasons. I think that the charts may be useful in solving disputes about genre, but I don't know that they are the only source. While reading through EW last night in my "spare time" (such an alien concept :)) I noticed that they list a very general genre next to every album they review. Checking their website, it seems to be present there, too. (cf. [7]) Again, I don't believe that the exhaustive details of sub-genre are necessary for the infobox, but some genre categorization is relatively uncontroversial. A jazz album may be Swing music or Afro-Cuban jazz, but it's still jazz. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

if i understand Alf's idea properly, the point isn't to use charts as a source for a "genre(s)" field - the idea is to have a "chart(s)" field in the info-box instead of a "genre(s)" field. the strong advantage being that what chart(s) an album appeared on is objective/verifiable fact, not POV. but that might be a misinterpretation of what Alf is considering here. maybe Alf will clarify?

meanwhile, for historical interest, here's a breakdown of names Billboard has used for the R&B singles charts down the decades - note that from 1969 to 1990 it was supplanted by "Hot Soul Singles" then "Hot Black Singles", which is what i meant earlier about the R&B category disappearing altogether for a couple of decades. i don't know where to find a similar history of the names of the Billboard R&B album charts ... but whatever they were named at the time is what wikipedia would need to use, since it's accurate verifiable fact whether or not it's currently PC. as for using EW as a main source instead of Billboard: that's part of what i meant up there somewhere by asking what guidelines already exist (or could be usefully hammered out) for which charts to base these things on. the chart information for articles about albums i'm looking at are based almost entirely on Billboard charts and The Official UK Charts Company. Sssoul (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at the time of writing that I was thinking 'what is available that relates properly to albums that is definitive?' and the only thing I could come up with was the chart' definitions, which have appear to have associated issues (in that the genres may not be at all usefull definitions) and moving the data field to being alongside the chart positioning, which is still an option to consider alongside or instead of other possible ways forward.--Alf ^melmac 15:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks for clarifying, Alf. it sounds like you're seeing some of the reasons i keep saying that such a field, if adopted, should not be called "genre(s)" - sometimes chart classifications are "named after" genres, but they aren't genres, they're chart classifications that Billboard, The UK Chart Company etc think up for their own purposes. so although Stones fans can't object to the factual information that Exile on Main St. appeared in what was then called the Pop Album chart, they would find it outrageous - quite rightly! - if wikipedia tried calling it "pop" in a "genre(s)" field. i hope you see what tree i'm barking up here ... i agree that the idea of having a "chart classification(s)" category instead of a "genre(s)" field still seems potentially promising, despite the various issues with it, for the very strong reason that it's verifiable fact, not a subjective judgement call. Sssoul (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm a very "average Wikipedian", which i believe was what you were looking for earlier. My point of view may not make much sense but i am going to try and express it all the same. When i first heard of this discussion, very early on, I initially thought Delete, as genres did seem a bit POV etc. Since following this discussion from very early on i have realised that (believed) consensus was reached too early, and, post-discussion, i think this is the result of "no consensus" and the genres should be kept until a more decisive reason is reached for deleting or keeping them. Thats just it from my point of view. Personally i don't think that any consensus will be reached, as there are too many people going for and against deleting. These views will clash. Well into the night. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 01:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No genre field in the box: Rodhullandemu (above, 21:50, 10 October) has expressed this well. Genre is a cultural construct. (In a sense this whole, massive discussion is a proof of this.) IMO genre is important, it's interesting and it should be considered - in a nuanced way in the text, but not put as a label on a box. (Album boxes are much less of a problem than biographies, but essentially the same arguments apply.) --Kleinzach 01:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Allow genre in the infobox field: Yes, genre is a cultural construct. Then again, so are gender, family, religion, and ethical systems. Regardless, it is definable, it is citable, and you can find many resources on it. Musician are artists often associated with particular styles and movements, and providing a link to those that are relevant would fit the role the infobox is supposed to provide. The infbox does not exist to quell content debates; those need to be settled by individual editors on individual pages. Yes, there are pages where genre in the infobox has created edit wars; there are also pages where everythign has gone along fine. The problem I feel is not with the field in of itself; the problems are varied and unique to each page, but often involve personal POV, lack of reliable sources, and sometimes just plain vandalism. And once again: we still have genre categories at the bottom of the page. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We need to establish a new consensus Everyone, no matter what your position is on this topic, needs to read Wikipedia:Consensus, particularly the sections "Consensus can change" and "Participating in community discussion". Whatever the flaws of the original proposal and consensus may have been, eveything changed when the descision was implemented, meaning everyone involved in editing music articles on Wikipedia could now see something was up. Thus you have new voices in the discussion coming from completely different perspectives, both agreeing and disagreeing. The original discussion at the top of this talk page is no longer relevant. We need to start over, simple as that. Then we can all give our opinions again, whether you agree with removing the genre field or not. Also, I must remind everyone to be civil and refrain from personal attacks; that's something I'm particularly sick of. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think people have lost perspective here, so here are a few points to remember : -

• Wikipedia is a collaborative project, therefore disagreements, edit wars and vandalism will happen. Editors cannot stop this and it is not their job to alter the project to limit collaboration.
• Wikipedia does not exist for the convenience or benefit of any editor or group of editors. It exists as a source of information, a useful depository of knowledge. Our primary goal should be to improve this and make it as informative as possible not to make it more convenient for editors.
• Wikipedia is not a battleground nor is a place for personal crusades. Undig those heels! --neon white talk 12:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• As repeatedly stated - edit wars and vandalism are not the heart of this matter. I for one am not seeking an alteration because of that - an alteration was sought because subjective data of variable quality is being used with no reference to any context as if it were definitive.

Actually the proposal was made because an editor was, to quote, "sick and tired of IP's and editors of the lower realms of boredom edit warring over the genre section of music info boxes.", essentially because they were a personal inconvience not because of any other reason. Unsourced info can easily be removed btw. --neon white talk 22:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason the proposal was made =/= the heart of the matter, nor was it a large part of the argument weight, does it matter that they are different? Yes unsourced info can be removed - the info should not be in there if it isn't already in text and citeable - restoring the field with no new parameters when we have the opportunity to lay down decent and workable ground rules helps us how?--Alf ^melmac 06:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Correct it does not exist for the convenience of individuals or groups and that includes readers and editors who can't be bothered to read any information more than a line long, and, this particular depository having subjective info displayed as definitive is contrary to the aim of being a usefull depository of knowledge- the info can be very useful when put into proper context - an info box line cannot do this - removing the genre field would encourage more writing up of the genre and thereby be more informative than before and certainly more of step towards that 'informative as possible' goal.

The only context really needed, like any other information on wikipedia, is a citation. --neon white talk 22:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope - strongly disagree - for example - a band which were the 'fathers of n' might be lumped into genre n by a number of sales outlets but not actually sound anything like n and have critics stating they are not n - this demands context, not a wee list of words including n unsupported by such text.--Alf ^melmac 06:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, how the heck can you be the father on "n", but sound nothing like "n"? Wanna give practical examples here? And make sure you list more than one instance please. It seems like, increasingly, proponents of the field removal are grasping at straws, delving into extreme abstract and hypothetical cases to prove their point: "what if this happened? What if that happens?" Fact: the vast majority of Wikipedia articles does not have the problem that you speak of. As one of the most vocal ones here Alf, your arguments lack salience and cogency. Orane (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No abstract or hypotheticals needed - I was thinking very specifically - of Motorhead - the only FA musical band I've worked on - apparently they are the fathers of speed metal - they sound like heavy metal or rock n roll to me and other critics. Context is crucial to understanding - that is not a point I should need to making.-Alf ^melmac 07:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess unless I jump through your hoop of insisting on having more than one example then you'll not let it lie - Neil Young is the "godfather of Grunge" - well yes - I can hear elements of Grunge in a small amount of his output but I and a lot of critics wouldn't be lumping him straight into that bag without any context, would you? Unfortunately, though very easily citable, the Neil Young article is absent of any cites about his influence on grunge, which is dealt with more than once in the text. Again I say - if we reinstate the genre box without conditions this will continue to be the norm, if we make some good foundations about what is acceptable, this will improve the quality of the articles. I am disappointed that a mediator would give such slant to my arguments the way you have, it is certainly not condusive to working out a workable solution.--Alf ^melmac 08:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I see no crusade here - I see a bunch of editors repeatedly stating that the genre field is too loose in its current state to satisfy the encylopedic goal and I see a bunch of editors repeatedly stating that removing the info is unacceptable despite having similar categories and the encouragement to write up the genres into something actually meaningfull. What is actually being stated is to improve the status of the articles by disallowing an unsupported subjective list in favour of the subjectivity being put into proper context and making it useful. Convenience has to weighed against accuracy which is entirely obtainable in text - but not in an info box list.

I look forward to hearing a decent counter-argument against the call to not use subjective data in a list in deference to placing it in text with cites in context.--Alf ^melmac 12:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything on wikipedia is a sourced opinion and guidelines allow us to summarise it for the lead of articles (the infobox imo should be considered part of the lead). As long as there are good sources and no bias it's fine, that's policy. --neon white talk 22:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Mention of their genres does not have to be in the first sentence of the lead of musician boxes, it should be mentioned as a summary of a later section, as with all info in a lead written per the guidelines. As long as there are sources, I agree, that is the thing, what is in the lead should be in the article - if the genre field is allowed back in to the album box then I can think of no reason not to disallow any genre in the field that isn't written up in citeable text. Whether we go further and have a set list of accetable genres to pick from is also debatable.--Alf ^melmac 06:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that such a counter-argument is necessary, as I believe that may be a false dichotomy. The genre field in the infobox is not meant to be used instead of referring to genre in the text, but in addition to. As Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums says in its guidelines, "Each article should begin with the album infobox...followed by the lead section which should include basics such as title, artist, release date, record label, and a word or two about genre and critical reception." It goes on to say "Describe...where it fits in its genre and what leanings it may have toward others...." The genre field in the infobox is a snapshot of the article, not a replacement for informative text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If what is included in the genre field of the info box on album articles strictly followed the cited text I would be content with that, if we could agree that that should a primary rule, that might be a starting point for the fence dwellers like myself, even if a note saying please see the style section for proper context is too much to bear alongside that data set...--Alf ^melmac 13:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be a summary of the info in the article, the fact that it may not work like that currently simply means there is work to be done. Removing it completely is just sounding more and more extreme and pointless. --neon white talk 22:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with being explicit with that as I indicated below. I tend to be a stickler for sourcing myself, probably overboard at times. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, clearly we have different types of anti-genre rational. Some don't like the edit wars, some don't like the subjective nature of genres in the info box. For some it's a mix of the two. — Realist² 12:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, does that mean you're propose a policy/guideline that genre(s) can be listed in the info-box only if they're discussed and properly sourced in the main body of the article? Sssoul (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, we already have that policy. :D But I'd be perfectly happy to see that made explicit in the guidelines. I know people are concerned about creep, but I can't see that it would add much to note that the infobox must also conform to WP:V. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If this turns out to be (part of) an agreeable solution we would be foolish not to make this explicit in the rules for the template's usage.--Alf ^melmac 13:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

i agree with Alf. WP:V isn't widely understood as implying that whatever goes in the info-box must be discussed in context in the body of the article with proper citations from reliable sources; if that's what the intention is, it would need to be made explicit. and it might encourage more people to do some good work on the articles themselves if a properly sourced discussion of genre in the article is a "pre-requisite" for a "genre(s)" field in the info-box. Sssoul (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

ps: on re-reading ... perhaps your intention is that sources must be cited right in the info-box for any genre(s) listed in this field? that's a very different proposal than requiring the info-box to reflect only stuff that's discussed/sourced in the article. Sssoul (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Eeek no, cites in the box look crap and if we were to strictly adhere to the 'not in this field if not in cited text' principle it would be duplication.--Alf ^melmac 13:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

smile: sorry to suggest anything so eekly, Alf! i was just trying to ascertain what Moonriddengirl's intentions are, since requiring citations for any genres listed is not the same as limiting the info-box field only to what is already discussed and properly sourced in the body of the article. i agree that the latter idea is *way* more sensible than adding citations to the info-box. Sssoul (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that genre should be discussed and appropriately referenced in the article body in accordance with the album guidelines & with WP:V. Again, I have no problem with dropping a reminder of that fact at the album guidelines. The question of whether inline citation is necessary, imo, would hinge on whether material is "challenged or likely to be challenged". One would most definitely need an inline citation to indicate that Britney Spears' new album is "Impressionist music", but one should not need an inline citation to indicate that Jazz at Massey Hall is jazz. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

okay, so the stipulation would be that properly-sourced discussion of genres in the article would be a "prerequisite" to having a "genre(s)" field in the info-box? that might be promising, beneficial to miles of articles, etc. i strongly disagree with you about "exempting" some "obvious" genre assertions from the in-line citation requirement; some editors consider it "obvious" that Sticky Fingers qualifies as a heavy metal album, and they feel just as strongly about it as you do about Jazz at Massey Hall. in-line citations from reliable sources should be required for any assertion of genre; if the genre is genuinely "indisputable" that just means it's easy to find a proper source for it. adopting this rule would mean there will be debates about what sources are reliable (eg does AMG count or not) - but that's surely a step up from purely POV "hit-and-run" edits.

a "hidden text" stating the rule would also need to be added to the field, to slow down at least some of the ongoing additions of genres/subgenres by editors who don't read guidelines & policies. i reckon it's not hard to add something like that, but i don't know how effective it is. Sssoul (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Sssoul's point re 'condisering it "obvious"' - need cites as a prerequisite. Judging by how persistent some of the 'editors' are when changing the British English articles to American English and vice versa (most of those articles are very clearly marked at the first two points of likley change) - not very effective - however, as there would have been an agreement on the ruling then it would be simpler to deal with persistent POV warriors who'd then be ignoring a ruling of usage.--Alf ^melmac 14:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If it were down to the three of us, I would rather concede the point than lose the genre, but I hope you'll both consider that inline citations are not generally necessary for uncontroversial assertions; that doesn't mean that information does not need to be sourced, but Jazz at Massey Hall (which I picked as a random example, having no personal hand in that particular article) is characterized as jazz at AMG, which is listed in references, and is included in The Penguin Guide to Jazz on CD, which is listed among the sources. Is it necessary in such a case to put in an inline citation to support the opening sentence segment "Jazz at Massey Hall is a jazz album"? This is not about original research or opinion, but about the necessity to support material that is likely to be controversial. I have yet to see a genre dispute on any of the (mostly jazz) articles I've written (at least the ones I'm still monitoring--although in one another editor did inexplicably remove reference to genre from the article's body while leaving it in the infobox. I haven't figured that one out yet, but I restored it with reference to the album guideline and it wasn't removed again.) Why not explicitly encourage inline citations for genre where dispute occurs or is likely to, which would be in accordance with existing practice at WP:V? (I'm not sure how reliable AMG is in rock articles, but one of their primary jazz reviewers is Scott Yanow, who is pretty reliable. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, again the point is that what's obvious to one person isn't obvious to another; people have radically different views of what's debatable/controversial as well. if there are tons of sources available to support the assertion that Album X is classfiable as Genre Y, then there's no reason *not* to cite one of them. leaving them uncited only encourages other editors to make unreferenced assertions of whatever they consider "obvious", and that's pretty far from the idea of WP:RS.

meanwhile, another question harks back to my previous example of an album for which i could discuss & properly source seven genres/subgenres - would this new rule justify including all seven in the info-box? if not, what limits would be established for how many, and who gets to make the judgement call on which of them is "important enough"? obviously if any limitations were imposed it would be vital to ensure that they don't wind up misrepresenting the music, the historical context, etc ... for example by calling Chuck Berry's first album rock in the info-box just because there's a perception that rock and roll later became a "subgenre" of rock plus a dictum that subgenres don't belong in the info-box. Sssoul (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I may not be being clear here. :) I'm not advocating not sourcing information. But as the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources notes, information is sourced in a number of ways; inline citation is only one of them. I'm a big fan of inline sourcing, but sometimes general reference is sufficient. (See for example the proposed document Wikipedia:When to cite and specifically the "hidden" note .) But, again, I'd sooner concede the point than the genre field. :) I still think that the answer to your latter question involves agreeing upon a delineation of acceptable genres similar to the agreement of appropriate reviews for inclusion in the infobox, although we both agree on the challenges of that. But I don't think that the restoration of genre to the infobox should wait on the establishment of such boundaries. I still think the basic question here is whether the genre line should continue to be included; the rest seems to me a matter of detail. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

ah well - for me it's not mere detail. see my initial response to this RfC: establishing clear, practical & enforceable guidelines for the field is crucial to whether or not i could support the proposal to reinstate it to album info-boxes. Sssoul (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing wrong with attempting to resolve the details whilst allowing the RfC to proceed. But as not everyone may agree that the outcomes of the two conversations are connected, perhaps it should be done in another section, with a pointer from here for interested parties? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Jazz at Massey Hall maybe isn't the best article to be using as an example as it contains no discussion on genre at all, when it does, the sources for the comments or classfication could easily be inlined and then the problem disappears - however, this example is quite apt for showing how adding genres into a box often ends up leaving us with no write up of the information, even though it might have come from a really excellent source. On a side note, I really want to know who allocated the classification as, in my view, some sites we regulalry use should be taken with a grain (and sometimes a handful) of salt - readers should be given the cites as a basic so they can discern the quality/veracity of the info for themselves.--Alf ^melmac 15:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't really pick it as an example of a great article (though it's not the worst, it's fairly incomplete), but as an example of one where the genre should be uncontroversial. It's inscribed in the album's title, after all, and was created by some of Jazz's most prominent musicians (I picked it from the Dizzy Gillespie discography). It was intended to help promote the Jazz Society, and it is included in NPR's "Basic Jazz Record Library". Good article or not, there's really not much question that it's an article about a jazz album (and stub though it may be, the text of the article says so as well as the infobox). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I realised you were picking it because it is highly unlikely that any rational person would contest it as not-Jazz though in this place you never know ;) I didn't notice in the article the info about it being NPR's list, which could start the ball rolling in that direction - it certainly gives a notion as to it's standing in the genre :) --Alf ^melmac 18:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, it is or should be secured from Not-Jazzness. :) Seems you didn't notice the NPR thing because it wasn't there. I've added it. (It's tempting to stop and work on the article, but must not. Alas. Other things to do. :/ And yet here I am anyway.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Thinking about it, the genre field is probably more essential for musician infoboxes than album infoboxes, since it is the artist themselves who are associated with genres and movements. Still, I'm leaning towards keeping the field in this template. To avoid edit wars (which seems to be the primary rationale for removing the field) we need to craft clear guidelines for the field we can enforce. Before, all it said was "keep it general" and apparently few people were even aware of that guidelines. We need not only guidelines, but a way of educating editors and a way to demostrating how to utilize the field most effectively. I'm thinking of an essay about "How to write album articles", which is something I'm thought about doing for a bit. I want to point out that the WikiProject I'm a member of, WikiProject Alternative music, is responsible for half of Wikipedia's album Featured Articles, and only on Dookie has the genre field been a source of contention. It's not impossible to use the field effectively; we just need to show people how to do it. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• I, for what it's worth, support reinstating the genre field in accordance with WesleyDodds' proposal. Giggy (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• I also support reinstation of the genre field in the infobox, per WesleyDodds' proposal. Besides, most of the current artist/album/song pages have the genres somewhere (often scattered all over) in the body of the page - why not let the genres be stated in the infobox, as long as they follow the guidelines (eg. they are properly sourced)? --FlyingPenguins (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I most definitely support reinstation of the genre fields, per WesleyDodds' proposal, as well as the above comment. Tenho Karite (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think there is a consensus for removal of genre field from any of infoboxes. I've seen such removal suggested several times at musical_artist_infobox discussion, and all the times, there was not enough support to actually remove it. It really surprised me this was finally decided here instead of corresponding infoboxes discussion. Personaly, I believe this was a terrible move. As far as I understand, there were only two reasons to remove genre field:
  • Genre is subjective and fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. False. Most music databases, encyclopedias, magazines and other kinds of publications which are reliable sources do list genres and styles. When you cite allmusic.com or billboard.com, the information is verifiable
  • Geting rid of Genre Warriors. Very, very poor approach. If the best way to fight Genre Warriors is getting rid of genre field, then the best way to fight vandals is closing Wikipedia altogether. If there would be no Wikipedia (or at least free-to-edit Wikipedia), there would be nothing to vandalize, huh? Not to mention the fact that Genre Warriors can and will use main article contents for edit warring. Netrat (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Also, I do somewhat support idea of having two separate fields for general meta-genre (or genre) and genre (or style, what is currently considered a genre). Netrat (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference and by which source? Is 'heavy metal' 'rock'? Is 'rock' 'rock & roll'? Is rockabilly rock & roll or vice versa? Again by which subjective source? are these determined. Will the alternative rock project agree that alternative rock won't be allowed in the genre box? (since it isn't a real genre) Will the heavy metal project agree to label all their bands as 'rock' bands? Fair Deal (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Heavy metal is a rock subgenre. Rock 'n roll became "Rock music". Rockabilly is a subgenre of rock 'n roll. Alternative rock is definitely a genre, albeit a broad one. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)