This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Music/Music genres task force Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre

Archives

March 2004 – February 2006 2004 – 2007 February 2007 – September 2008 2009 – 2011 2012 – 2014 2015 – 2017

There is a discussion taking place about whether or not to keep, delete or retarget {{WikiProject Music}} at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_28#Template:WikiProject_Music. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion taking place about whether templates (primarily infoboxes) for funk and closely related genres should use a different color than the orange currently used for soul music, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Colours#Should Funk be a different colour than Soul? LifeofTau 20:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RFC on removing genres from infoboxes at WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Request for comment on removing genres from musician, album, and song infoboxes — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been perusing the discussions on this page, and also this one, about colors for the music genre infobox. Someone please help me out here because I can find no actual rules to follow and it all seems a matter of opinion about what genres sound similar to each other. I am working on a new genre article, which will be about rock n' roll in a non-Western country in the 1960s-70s. Is there an appropriate color group for my infobox? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: The relevant guide is WP:GENRECOLOUR. In your case, crimson would appear to be the most appropriate choice. LifeofTau 22:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Life of Tau: - Thanks, somehow I did not see the various links around the project pages to that colour guide. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a RfC about the scope of the hip house term at Talk:Hip house#RfC: Is hip house a present day trend? RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently created this new music genre article: Cambodian rock (1960s-70). Everyone here is welcome to check it out and make contributions. I am not concerned about the current state of the text, but I have been forced to create an article that is almost a giant wall of text with no photos of the people being discussed. My early versions of the article had photos of many of the relevant musicians, but they were mostly non-free/copyrighted images, and Wikipedia's non-free police subjected me to a highly inflexible and disheartening tirade about how such images should (key word: should) only be used once in Wikipedia, and typically at a musician's main page. This makes most non-free musician images ineligible for genre articles where the exact same person is prominently discussed. So if anyone can help out, please throw in some ideas on how best to illustrate this article. Thanks in advance. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone actually watches this page, I would like to point out that my message above raises some serious issues about the viability of this project's articles (ANY of them) due to the rules for using non-free photos of the musicians discussed. The lack of response is rather odd for what seems like a well-populated project. Just to entice some more discussion, while I was arguing with the non-free police about the use of photos in my article Cambodian rock (1960s-70), one of the "experts" on that team specifically said that music genre articles should not be using photos repeated from a musician's personal article, and from my casual reading of genre articles this seems like a rather common practice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Sophisti-pop, a major theme of the various threads is the significance that this was not regarded as a genre at the time, that the disparate acts were not regarded as connected and that the term for and concept of this genre was not coined until a couple of decades or so later. Understandably, it proved difficult to find references to verify this negative and the article had settled without these details being expressed therein. Ironically, a user that had never engaged in the talk discussions but was diligent in removing the notion from the article, fixed a dead link to a WP:RS, citing unrelated material in the article, that also made a point of noting the retrospective nature of the term. The issue of sourcing resolved, I added it back but, though the veracity seems now to have been accepted, it is still being removed, with new and questionable edit summary rationales and still without engagement at talk. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted an RfC re: the categorization of all works (albums, songs) by artists by genre.

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#RfC_on_categorizing_all_works_by_an_artist_by_genre.

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Rock music is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rock music until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Country music is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Country music until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Electronic music is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Electronic music until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Soft Rock is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Soft Rock until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Punk rock is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Punk rock until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is is acceptable to use "U.S." and "UK" in genre infoboxes? For an infobox, it seems that, as a space savings measure, it is appropriate to use a commonly accepted acronym instead. This would even seem to be preferred to writing out the full names "United States and United Kingdom" when both appear in the same infobox. This question arose during the following:

When removing inappropriate content to Texas blues[1], I changed |cultural_origins= from "c. 1920s, Texas, United States" to ""c. 1920s, Texas, U.S." This was reverted with the explanation "Per convention". I restored "U.S." with the explanation: "MOS:ACRO includes 'For these commonly-referred-to entities, the full name does not need to be written out in full on first use, nor provided on first use in parentheses after the full name if written out ... US or U.S.', plus it's in an infobox".[2] This was reverted with the explanation: "Nothing in MOS:ACRO prohibits or advises against writing out the name in full, and it later states that doing so allows for commonality. Writing out "United States" and "United Kingdom" is the established convention in music genre infoboxes; if this is something you believe should be changed, you should make your case at WT:GENRE or WT:WPMU rather than attempting to alter one specific instance out of hundreds."[3]

In looking through the talk page archives, I don't see that there a consensus has been established for this view or that it has been discussed. Additionally, no specific guidance for |cultual_origins= (or |stylistic_origins=) is given in Template:Infobox music genre#Parameters. Is it in fact the "established convention" for genre music boxes to write out the full name "United States" and "United Kingdom"? If so, what is the reason for disapproving something clearly allowed under the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations guideline?

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been frustrated by these loose and usually unlinked claims of consensus before; I feel your pain. If there is a reliably good convention worth note, it would be found established in the infoboxes of featured music articles (the structure of which is currently being discussed by the way and if you want to find what you might be interested in seeking more easily, you might prefer to look at this version of the FA list). Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I misunderstood that you're talking about the use of {{Infobox music genre}}. I just checked the first (alphabetical listings are effectively random for this purpose) 14 pages using that infobox and found that of those that mention a geographical location, only one used an acronym. Not a thorough check, but it is an indication of a conventional use of full geo-location names. "Convention" may not exactly equate to "consensus", but it might prove a fair start. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, there has never been, to my knowledge, a written statement of consensus prohibiting the abbreviation of place names in music genre infoboxes. If this is the threshold that must be met, then you are correct. What does exist, however, is a mostly consistent pattern of writing out "United States" and "United Kingdom" in music articles stretching to 2005 or 2006; this is seen in pages such Pop music, Rock music, Blues, and Heavy metal music. This was presumably a matter of preference for aesthetic purposes. It is apparent that what eventually arose from this was an informal agreement to not abbreviate place names in such infoboxes, which became an established, generally agreed-upon practice (i.e., a convention). This is manifested in the hundreds of current music genre infoboxes in which "United States" or "United Kingdom" are written out in full. I do not have a strong preference for one style over the other; what matters more is maintaining consistency. Altering the established convention would necessitate modifying these hundreds of infoboxes – there should be a more compelling reason for doing so than a guideline which states that both practices are allowable.

Pursuant to Fred Gandt's first suggestion, I will note that there are three featured music genre articles – Punk rock, Heavy metal music, and New wave of British heavy metal – and in each infobox, any instance of "United Kingdom" or "United States" is written out. Note also that the one example of abbreviation found by Fred Gandt, Blues, was introduced by Ojorojo earlier this month. LifeofTau 19:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many practices are based on a mis- or partial understanding of guidelines, which are subsequently repeated to the point that they are seen as the correct way. Many song FAs use " for inches (All You Need Is Love (the JAMs song), Baby Boy (Beyoncé song), Fuck the Millennium, Hey Baby (No Doubt song), etc.) although MOS:UNITSYMBOLS#Specific units specifically says "Do not use ′ (′), ″ (″), apostrophe (') or quote (")" for inches and feet. Although this has been incorporated into the template documentation for several years, editors still use ", probably because they have seen it so often, including in FAs and GAs.

Many books that have tables use "U.S." and not "United States"; to me, this looks correct, much like "CD" instead of "compact disc", when the context makes it clear. I don't see why both the allowable acronyms and full names cannot be used in separate infoboxes, depending on the editor's preference. However, if there is agreement on the issue, rather than just passive acceptance (no doubt reinforced by efforts to remove variations), perhaps it should be formalized. Then, written guidance on the subject can be cited, rather than having to go through discussion like these. To often I've seen baseless comments like "it's a requirement", "this is how we do it", etc., so I am usually suspicious of "per convention"-type explanations. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

if there is agreement on the issue, rather than just passive acceptance ... perhaps it should be formalized - I couldn't agree more. However, we do have WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, which effectively states that agreement implicitly exists if no one has explicitly disagreed, making this stuff less straightforward; a wider and deeper discussion will be needed if implicit consensus is found to disagree with the relevant guidelines and policies. If policies or guidelines are blatantly being widely ignored, and inline with WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, all the offending errors could be fixed and the result be considered the new implicit agreement as long as the edits are not contested. That would be great fun - not. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about a simple RfC on the issue: Should Template:Infobox music genre |cultural_origins= countries be restricted to full names, such as "United States" and "United Kingdom", or is it acceptable to also use the acronyms "U.S." and "UK" (with or without periods) as allowed by MOS:ACRO#Exceptions? Whatever is decided can be added to the template documentation/guidance. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is an RfC really necessary for this narrow-focused concern? WP:RFCBEFORE Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointed to this discussion from a note left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. I think for a true community-wide consensus an RfC is required, but we should discuss this subject first. In the context, an initialism for common nations is appropriate. In this case U.S., US, (not USA), UK, USSR, and other nations is appropriate. That list is not exhaustive. States, provinces and other sub-national locations should never use an abbreviation or initialism. Other nations that do not have a common initialism or abbreviation, such as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Brazil or Australia, should be spelled-out in full. The point of including the location is general information for the reader and we should attempt to keep the location as short as possible in infoboxes.

Some locations don't even need a sub-national location. So New York, New York, United States; Hollywood, California, United States; Paris, France; Glasgow, Scotland; United Kingdom; and other common locations can simply be stated by city: New York; Hollywood; Paris; Glasgow. This is particularly the case when it is unambiguous. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember this being included in a guideline, but I'm not sure if it was specific to infoboxes. Meanwhile, following Fred Gandt's comment, the acronym/initialism issue has been broaden and brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Naming countries in infoboxes. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have done most of the work needed to realise a formatting and standardisation template for short genre descriptions and would like other interested editor's feedback regarding its possible use before creating a proper template (it's currently in my sandbox).

• {{sgd}} invokes Module:User:Fred Gandt/sgd which in-turn seeks available descriptions from User:Fred Gandt/sandbox/Sgd/list – an easily editable description list
• Some examples of it's use and output can be seen at User:Fred Gandt/sandbox#Short genre description

Questions I'd like to hear other's answers to are:

• Should the description be in a small font?
• Should the description have a length limit?
• Should the description be parenthesised?

Feel free to provide any other feedback that comes to mind. I have cross-posted this request for feedback at Talk:List of popular music genres#Template in development - request for feedback. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Alternative rock is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alternative rock until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• The Spurs (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Canadian Country Music group. Charted, but sources and sourcing is thin. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are comments at Talk:Acid house#Assessment and tags which may be of interest to members. Otr500 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The questions I hope are resolved by this RfC are: 1. Does an artist need to agree with a National Socialist black metal labeling to be labeled NSBM? 2. In cases where external sources disagree about an NSBM labeling, do we consider the band NSBM or not? --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from 3family6: There have been rather long-standing content disputes regarding the genre of National Socialist black metal and the labeling of such artists. The core of the dispute seems to whether or not a band has to explicitly call themselves NSBM in order to be labeled such or not, or if labeling as such from independent analysts or reviewers is sufficient. Related to this is the issue is cases where a particular band is labeled NSBM because the membership of a particular band contains individuals who have performed music in other bands that are described as NSBM. In short, are external references sufficient, or does a band itself have to consider itself NSBM? Related to this, there are some bands, such as Khors, where some analysts and reviewers have explicitly and clearly labeled the band as NSBM (and in the case of Khors, considered it part of white power music movements, but others do not consider the band to be part of this because the lyrics and themes from the band are not overtly fascist or otherwise far-right. I've seen similar conflicts with other labels that are based primarily on an ideological, ethnic, or especially, religious affiliation, such Christian hip hop or Christian metal, or even Viking metal. Generally, consensus for these genres is that if there are some reliable sources that label the artist as such, even if other sources dispute that labeling, that is sufficient for inclusion as part of that genre, but making sure that the dispute among sources is mentioned on the artist's article. This dispute became much more heated due to my ongoing work on the National Socialist black metal article. I created a list article of NSBM artists in which every artist listed is supported by at least one citation to an independent, third-party reliable source. Concurrent with that, I added listed bands to Category:National Socialist black metal bands, and included mentions of the genre labeling, with citations to reliable sources, in the respective articles. Various IP and new user accounts challenged these edits and removed the cited content without providing rationale based in policy or guidelines. The article on Khors, where this was especially occurring, was temporarily semi-protected at my request because of disruptive editing. After that lifted, Violeance and I got into an edit war. A discussion on Violeance's talk page did not fully resolve the dispute, as they oppose my inclusion of NSBM in the infobox for the band. I requested an RfC, Violeance took this to ANI. The judgment there by EdJohnston was that my edit warring extends beyond just Khors but to the entire topic of Category:National Socialist black metal. They suggested that I start an RfC or else risk being blocked.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from Violence: According to the wiki page National Socialist black metal itself, it is “a political movement within black metal music that promotes neo-Nazism and similar ideologies”.

I. So, my points in regard to bands “labeling” are the following: 1. If the music (lyrics) of the band does not reflect any NS ideas; 2. If the band members have never pronounced any nazi statements; 3. If the band members have never called for any injustice, including injustice in regard to other people of any gender, race, nation, etc.; 4. If the band members didn’t show any interest to political movement (especially in regard to the topic discussed); 5. If the band members doesn’t belong to any social and political parties; 6. If the band members were pronouncing clearly, they have nothing to do with this stuff. What would be the reason behind then “labeling” the band Nsbm? How it would be any possible to apply unverified rumors, someone’s malice, single assumptions and conjectures of private individuals to “label” anybody in such serious accusations? I did my little research on this issue among some people who are metal music amateurs and some who are not, so the statement above reflects the common séance from both groups of people: those who are approximately familiar with this theme, and those who are not aware much of this subject matter.

II. Secondly, my guess, by being a “nazi representative”, you have to be “proud of it”, seek to revive and implement the ideology of nazism. Is it not true? So you would constantly repeat your “philosophy” around, claim it, and stand for it. This is how social and political movements are working, usually. Again, this is the common knowledge speaks.

III. Thirdly, many metal music researches from the scientific world stated the ongoing contempt to the metal music bands and its amateurs seeing them as “others” (and THIS IS a nazi ideology at work!). I quote one of those: “Controversies over heavy metal are seen as social reactions to perceived deviance: starting with targeting metal music as one of the threatening genres in the 1980s at the national level in the USA, and continuing presently with a censorship by Christian authorities, and political repression and societal stigmatization in Islamic countries” (Hjelm, 2011:7,8,13, journals.equinoxpub.com/index.php/PMH/article/view/14426). I want to believe metal music already went through this, and this is not those times anymore.

IV. Fourthly, let the Musicians do their music they are great at. Musical Artists do their piece of art, because they are talented to do so, and to pour out their emotions; for music amateurs to absorb this piece of art and to pour their emotions too. So this Art shall be extremely respected. This I am telling you, as a long term metal music amateur of many metal music genres.

V. Fifthly, I will repeat it over and over, my strong believe that each single person shall be protected from the persecution on the base of their race, nation, religion, gender, place of living, social position, etc. The same applies to Artists. Violeance (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the National Socialist black metal, with a citation, there is this: "NSBM artists are not always explicit with their political beliefs in the music, instead expressing their beliefs offstage.[2]" Khors has members of much more clearly NSBM bands, in particular Hate Forest, and they extensively collaborated with members of Nokturnal Mortum, another NSBM band. So the views of many members and associates of the band have been clearer in the past. The band itself has said "We have always been patriotically adjusted and we propagandized love to the Native Land, respect for ancestors and so on but one must not confuse it with inadequate political trends and organizations."[4] That's not exactly a disavowal of far-right political allegiance. This is why they have the label from some publications that they do - the issue is whether or not the activities and beliefs of individual members is sufficient for the labeling.

Regarding point 2, almost no band is truly an NSBM band if flaunting their political allegiance is required. Even a band as blatantly NSBM as Absurd has at times been vague and disingenuous. This is often a deliberate strategy, and a lot of European countries have bans on far-right political activity that far-right figures would need to be cautious of.

Point 3 is irrelevant because we aren't talking about sources that are antagonistic to metal in general, and the vast majority are publications that specialize in metal or rock.

Point 4 also is irrelevant - this isn't about legal suppression, it's about what various publications label an artist as based on their work and their scene associations.

Point 5 isn't always relevant, because not every source is out to persecute these bands - for instance, Chronicles of Chaos was neutral toward NSBM in terms of the ideological content and themes, assessing bands solely on the quality of the music. And, additionally, labeling a band based on the rhetoric from band members, thematic material, or the scene in which it is a part isn't persecution - it's a label.

Its longstanding consensus that bands themselves aren't sufficient for their own genre label, due to concerns about market posturing. It's left to outside work, usually that of music journalists, to define these labels. Now, in this case there are serious BLP concerns, and of course the quality of statements in reliable sources need to be evaluated. From the source material, the question at issue here is not the actual ideology and activities of the artists, but how much that effects the NSBM label when the lyrical content and themes are not explicitly fascist.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• When doubt, don't label In this case I think multiple arguments would apply:

1. We're here to provide information, not characterize. Unless widely accepted, characterizations are not information
2. Except for some undisputed or slam dunk obvious ones, genres are fuzzy "eye of the beholder" things
3. In this case, the labelling is a very strong and nasty accusation, and it inevitably flows to the band members. So the particularly strong requirements & cautions of WP:BLP apply

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does this apply to things like list articles and categories?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd apply the same standard to them. Fortunately most of those have pretty objective criteria.North8000 (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, is "have been labeled as X" an objective criterion when some sources label the artist as that and others explicitly don't?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khors is probably the most contentious and the best example of the kind of disagreement you can find in the source material, and this is the kind of thing we see in the sources: "While it is refreshing to have an NSBM album in a market that is crammed with material that is either epic, overflowing with folkish experimentation or flirting with RAC nonsense, this is insufficient to rescue _TFoED_ from mediocrity.";^[1] "Later Ukrainian white-power bands that have also played key roles in the scene include the Kharkiv-based group Dub Buk (oak and beech).... Other key groups have included Munruthel, Whites Load, Drudkh, Nachtigall (German for nightingale), and Khors (named for the god of the sun in Slavic mythology.";^[2] "Ah, Ukrainian black metallers. We probably wouldn’t get along, but I love their music. So romantic, passionate…and sometimes racist. The press for Khors‘ Mysticism (Paragon, 2008) denies any political attachments. But though their lyrics are about ice, forests, lakes, and so on, the band members have NSBM associations – Hate Forest, Nokturnal Mortum, Runes of Dianceht. (I don’t get how Ukrainians can be pro-Nazi, given WWII, but that’s another matter.) This is one of those 'separate the creator from the creation' deals.";^[3] and ""Khors has always been a rather harmless black metal troupe, removing themselves from any political conflicts and revelling in ancient traditions and mythical prowess."^[4] All of these are quality sources: Two reputable webzines, a music magazine, and a full book published through an academic publisher. And the dispute is not about the beliefs and political associations of the artists themselves (which I believe is the biggest BLP concern) - this is well-documented and sources are in agreement. It's whether or not these histories and associations should be applied to the band as a genre label.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As with any label, based on reliable sources. If multiple reliable sources call a band NSBM then it can be called NSBM, unless there are also a significant number of reliable sources disputing this, in which case the disagreement should be mentioned ("Though some critics have labelled X as NSBM because of its ..., others ..."). If a band calls itself NSBM then it can be called NSBM, absent a reliable source consensus that the band is not. Otherwise, such labels should be avoided in Wikipedia's voice, but a reliable source description or direct quote can be mentioned if given in-text attribution. — Bilorv (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea that a band can call itself whatever it wants and absent a reliable source consensus that the band is not, then it is, is utter nonsense. A band can say what it wants about itself because they want to do what their marketing suggests. No, I'm sorry, only if a reliable source makes a claim should we label a band with any genre. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's a case where external sources dispute the label but the band is like, "no, we actually are this", that would be definitive.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Labelling the band NSBM or not - shall be considered in the context of members of the band.

This is due to fact that labelling the band to the NSBM groups, means that you accuse members of the band in neo-nazism, and for such accusations, you need very strong basic of such evidence occurred. If, objectively, in a band’s actions, nsbm features never showed: never in designing, lyrics, merchandise products, etc. Agree with the one who wrote: “ if the band members have never pronounced any nazi statements, the band members have never called for any injustice, including injustice in regard to other people of any gender, race, nation, etc.; The band members didn’t show any interest to political movement (especially in regard to the topic discussed); The band members doesn’t belong to any social and political parties; The band members were pronouncing clearly, they have nothing to do with this stuff. What would be the reason behind then “labeling” the band Nsbm?”

May be the band labelled NSBM if, previously, one or several members did play in the bands with ambiguous reputation? Nobody labels Riverside band NSBM, because of their drummer and keyboardist were playing in Kataxu, Dark Fury, Thunderbolt, Sunwheel previously. You can’t label Dimmu Borgir NSMB band, though their recent drummer Daray played in Sunwheel. Nobody does that for Behemoth, though on their first album Rob Darken from Graveland was an invited singer.

In the case with Khors example, the link where the band was mentioned in such context is dated 2005, though the band has started its activity in 2004 only. The reviewer’s assumption of relating new band to NSBM, was based on info that keyboardist for this album was invited from Nokturnal Mortum. This website also marked that all opinions expressed in ^[1] are opinions held at the time of writing by the individuals expressing them, and they do not necessarily reflect the opinions of anyone else, past or present. Most likely a few repeating, based on this publication, has become this reason of assuming that band has relations to NSBM things.

My conclusion: if the band never pronounced any nazi statements, didn’t show any political involvement and interest to it, it was never shown designing, lyrics, merchandise products of band, it can’t be labeled. And the most important things NSBM it is not about music. NSBM is about black metal music with Neo-nazi, right-wing or racist meanings. OverrideTheOverture (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"And the most important things NSBM it is not about music. NSBM is about black metal music with Neo-nazi, right-wing or racist meanings." - This isn't the opinion of every reliable source. Many consider black metal music from musicians who have neo-Nazi or fascist views to be NSBM as well. Regarding the CoC statement "all opinions expressed in are opinions held at the time of writing by the individuals expressing them, and they do not necessarily reflect the opinions of anyone else, past or present" - that's a plagiarism disclaimer saying that they aren't copying someone else's work, not that their statements aren't reliable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BLP is an issue with involuntary labeling - National socialism itself is not value-free and is widely despised. Care should be taken that people are not unjustly painted with such a term. TMLutas (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

I will say that this is a quite important discussion to have about lyrical content, stances, ideologies, affiliations, and allusions of various metal bands; what qualifies a band as NSBM; and the relationship(s) of metal with national socialism, far-right ideologies, and groups and institutions disseminating said ideologies.

My interest in this discussion was spawned from 1) observing and participating in editing activity on the Drudkh page (more on Drudkh later), and 2) a solicitation from @3family6 for my opinion.

Intentional NSBM bands

Labeling bands NSBM is an undertaking that must be used with discretion and have utmost respect for truthful interpretation. I would say if there is reasonable doubt about a band being NSBM, or that a random person in, say, a comments section called the band NSBM once, then it would not inherently be wise to follow suit. If there is little to no ambiguity about the ideologies of the members band or music project, and the band openly writes music in testament to such ideologies, and these ideologies are in philosophical tandem with national socialism and/or other far-right schools, and there is enough reliable sourcing to establish their designation, then the band in question can be safely assessed as NSBM. Bands like Absurd, Thor's Hammer, Grand Belial's Key, and Nokturnal Mortum are verified and unambiguous example of NSBM and can, without any possibility of harming subject interpretation, be considered and pronounced as such. (Side note: Particularly the band Absurd have some gall doing that in, of all places, Germany.) Even if not peddling ideas about keeping a white identity or Aryan bloodline in tact, then simple, superficial, brutish depictions of racism against the non-white "others" can make a band NSBM (Example: the cover of Peste Noire – Split – Peste Noire by Peste Noire features blackface.) To validate any one band being dubbed as NSBM, it would be best practice to use multiple reliable sources making the suggestion or affirmation. Using only one source to affirm a band as NSBM has potential to be problematic, because, depending on the quality of the source, as well as the information expressed therein, there may still be a risk of defaming the band in question.

Ambiguous bands

Where it gets tricky are bands who thrive in gray-area fields, or maybe equip a dog whistle or two in their musical rhetoric. Examples of tactics used by bands toeing the line, but in ways that can still be passable and/or legitimate, may include expressing nationalism for one's country, region, or history thereof (Example: The Varangian Way by Turisas; Forefather); having a militant or military aesthetic (Example: Sabaton, Drottnar); writing songs about WWII and/or Nazi history (Example: Slayer's song "Angel of Death".); or having regular Pagan themes and symbols in their music (Example: Heidevolk, Folkearth, basically any Pagan metal). All the examples I gave are music that do not have any NSBM connotations, nor are there any serious pundits or journalist suggesting so. Yet NSBM or RAC bands have used these techniques to the point that such, I believe, are reasonably common among such bands (NSBM or NSBM-like example that combines several previous tropes: Loits).

One suggestion I have for ambiguous, middling bands that are part of the sub-discourse of "are they NSBM or not" is to place sources claiming that they are against sources claiming that they are not (the latter potentially including officially released denials from the band themselves). One technique worth using for ambiguous bands, or bands with past or present affiliations with NSBM characters but without respective lyrical themes, would be to state that the band "have been accused" of NSBM, or use similar phrasing. If a band has at least semi-credible rumors of [possibly] being NSBM, and such have been reported by legitimate sources, but there is still credible uncertainty about the [lack of] far-right lyrical themes in the relevant band's music, then the "accusation" phrasing suffices.

Drudkh

This is a technique I thought of when editing the Drudkh page. After there was some edit warring about whether or not Drudkh could be considered NSBM, I made this edit, which I feel is a reasonable compromise. Drudkh is a band that does not have fully discernible NSBM themes, whose music do not evidently address racial matters, and is not seriously regarded as canonical to the NSBM schools. However, Drudkh have members in common with Hate Forest, they espouse politically-minded Ukrainian nationalism, and, most pertinently, they revere Stepan Bandera in their liner notes of Blood in Our Wells. Bandera is, according to my rudimentary understanding of World War II-era Ukrainian politics, a man so polarizing that opining one way or the other about him is a highly political, possibly even partisan, gesture (to put it lightly). Therefore, these characteristics give pause to some critics and reviewers, historians, or other analyzers of music, to draw the conclusion that Drudkh are NSBM; or, one or more of the band members have committed enough NSBM or NSBM-adjacent activity to be considered toxic. (Also, see this Times of Israel article about the anti-Semitic canard of Jews poisoning wells. Draw your own conclusions.)

Allusions and various interpretations

Generally, if a band's lyrical themes are not consistent with NSBM themes and ideologies, then they are not NSBM. But if that is the case; yet their members have affiliations, past or present, with NSBM characters or circles that have not been disavowed or distanced effectively; or the relevant musicians personally express ideas and philosophies of an extreme far-right nature while promoting their music; then, while not sure-fire, the relevant band or music project is more likely to be validly called NSBM or inferred as parallel to such. As well, if the band makes significant use of dog-whistles or allusions through their music, lyrics, or imagery, yet are not canonically considered NSBM, whether or not they should be dubbed such can be a case-by-case judgement call, but such allusions should be reported on their article(s) for the sake of encyclopedic integrity.

If a band has one or two apparently minor questionable elements of their music or image that are in common with NSBM practice, but the band largely does not address nor seem interested in racial politics or far-right extremism, then the likely safe inference is that they are not NSBM. For example, Moonsorrow is not an NSBM band, and is not seriously considered or reputed as such. However, the S in the band's logo has been criticized as looking like the S's in the Schutzstaffel logo. Intentional? I do not know, but I do know that both are inspired by runes. But Moonsorrow's relationship with Loits (see link in first paragraph of "Ambiguous bands") is worth further consideration, as well as the controversy section on Moonsorrow's Wikipedia article.

J'accuse?

Bear in mind that being accused of racism or Nazism is different from actually being racist and/or a Nazi, and does not mean someone actually is a racist, Nazi, anti-Semite or other far-right type of person. (example: Mirrorthrone, a non-NSBM Swiss band) Therefore, to diminish the influence of a probable solitary character who is simply using "Nazi" or similar terms as a slur against someone they do not like; or someone who resorts to defamation, mis/disinformation, or gossip of uncertain origin to paint someone as far-right; this, again, affirms the need to use multiple reliable sources to state whether or not the band is NSBM, or at least has far-right ties. If multiple reliable sources disagree on whether or not a band is NSBM, make sure to give even coverage as best as possible to the contrasting viewpoints expressed.

Conclusion

I know that my opining is not the final word on which bands to give the NSBM label to and which to not. What I can do is observe which ones are brandishing swastikas, sunwheels, and championing Aryanism while disparaging non-whites, and see that they are a full article of NSBM manifestation. But for such who are not traditionally regarded as NSBM, and are even on prominent labels, but have more sly, perhaps insidious, ways of disseminating what they truly think, I can recognize that, while potentially not enough to earn the label of "NSBM", the band in question certainly has a problematic undercurrent which needs addressing in places such as their Wikipedia articles (alongside those ever-important sources!).

An NSBM band, or anyone who is extreme right, is not such simply because they are proud of their ancestors, traditions, and nation, etc. There is nothing wrong with being proud of such. When it starts becoming xenophobia is when someone prioritizes the mythologized rendition thereof above the lives and needs of "others", the latter of whose mere existences the former view as an intrusive force diluting or obstructing their ways of life. An intrusion to stave off or eliminate altogether.

Thank you for reading, and I hope this is helpful. Let me know of any questions, comments, or rebuttals.

But I apologize if my post was not long or detailed enough.

Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that input, Mungo Kitsch. How would you apply this to the List of National Socialist black metal artists or Category:National Socialist black metal musical groups? Do the sources need to be unanimous in order for a band to be included?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good question, 3family6. For bands that do not market themselves as NSBM, but have enough characteristics consistent with such to be credibly regarded as NSBM, then I would say put them in the category. As well, while I would not enforce this, I would say that two-plus sources would be a good indication for any band that is on the list you described. And sources being unanimous always helps for information as sensitive as this, but bands that do enough dog-whistles or make enough controversial comments or stances can credibly be dubbed and categorized as NSBM, particularly if these stances have noteworthy effect and influence on their music. If a majority of reliable sources say that a band is not NSBM, then the band can be treated encyclopedically as if they are not.

One designation on the list article does give me pause, though. Despite being previously named after the Birkenau concentration camp, and appearing on an NSBM compilation that the band may or may not have authorized use of their music on, I Shalt Become do not seem to have overt political themes. Even the cited source, addressing that band's NSBM designation, state:

“

The album has also been grouped under what would have been at the time a virtually non-existent NSBM "scene". A later demo under the name Birkenau, which wound up on the infamous _Night and Fog_ compilation, seems to have caused much of the confusion. None of _Wandering_'s brief, fragmented lyrics and non- threatening images of landscapes evokes a political so much as internal, contemplative mood in the vein of _Filosofem_.

”

I do not interpret this as the cited source thinking that I Shalt Become are NSBM, but are instead, using their words, "confused" as such. Other than dabbling in WWII-related imagery and terms, I Shalt Become appear to have no political or racial connotations, and have not maintained WWII themes since the early 2000s at the latest. I do not believe there is enough to go on to call that band NSBM, and I interpret the actual cited source as doubtful of the tag anyways. What do you think? Mungo Kitsch (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted that as basically a statement that the band started out as NSBM but isn't any longer (which happened with Thunder Bolt, where a band member admitted that they used to be NSBM but have since disavowed the scene). I agree that's not a strong source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the current view on citing genre based material published by Bandcamp, personally I think WP:COISOURCE applies, it's not an independent source because of its commercial nature; what it publishes is essentially promotional content for the music it hosts. Views on this? Can discuss here also.Acousmana (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends entirely what is being sourced. If it's something uncontroversial, such as the "reissue" of an album, that would be acceptable. If it's attempting to support notability, no. There is a lot of latitude between those two poles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not a COI source, it's a WP:PRIMARY one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the originator of the Nouvelle Chanson page, I'd like to thank all those contributors who have redesigned my page and made it proper.

When originally looking at the music of the Swedish artist Ane Brun, Who had spent years busking in France to develop her music, I became aware of the genre. As I could find no article on it, I created the page. There was very little material available for research. The main source was an article from the French Embassy in Canberra, which actually said that for the first time the French were creating decent pop music!

I wrote to Carla Bruni suggesting that France promoted the genre and received a polite reply from her secretary that she was 'aware of the situation', something like that.

Thank you all again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigocat (talk • contribs) 06:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing whether or not a genre should be interpreted on the article for a Kanye West song. If anyone could jump in to discuss, that would be great. The discussion is here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For more notice, a discussion that may result in the removal of |instruments= from the infobox has been started at WT:WPMU#Typical instruments parameter in Template:Infobox music genre. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody write up an article about the 'Cosmic Scouse' and 'Scallydelica' music scenes?^[1][2][3] Madchester has got a large article linked to Psychedelic music and Alternative rock on Wikipedia...but you only get Cosmic Scouse mentioned in random articles such as The Bandwagon Club, even though 20 years ago it cropped up quite a bit in the music press. On the other hand random sub-genres like 'Hipster hop' and 'Wonky pop', which may have only been dreamt up/noted by a couple of random journalists (or, in the case of the latter, been a bit of a failure if the idea was to create a lasting scene that was much more than a couple of hit albums by MIKA) are deemed worthy of inclusion.

The article Comedy music has been significantly expanded and should be considered for reassessment. Thank you. AnggotheManggo (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Bibeyjj (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Turbo-folk compilation albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Chalga compilation albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this page Draft:Shadab_Siddiqui is not yet reviewed, so can any editors/reviewer can look into this? --111.88.207.50 (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear your opinion on removing colors for small regional genres and assigning new colors (reassigning old ones) for larger categories. Discussion. Solidest (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, would anyone be able to assess the new article 'Afro-Caribbean Music'? I wrote it for my university class and would love some feedback and assistance if possible? Thank you, Ddra5202 (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on the talk page about including genres in the infobox of the article on Quique. Any contributions would be helpful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I created the 2nd FA review on heavy metal music. Please your contributions to the article are welcome. --George Ho (talk) 06:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Boyz on Block Draft:Time (Five album) Can someone approve or reject these please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basil4517 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:331F:C301:24A5:F9CA:5C6E:B737 (talk) [reply]

I suggested adding a project template for all articles tagged with music genres (and other related classes) on Wikidata. The details are here: Wikipedia:Bot requests#Adding WikiProject Music genres template to 1.6k genre articles. Feel free to discuss the request there.

P.S. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Assessment is now tagged historical, but the template itself is actively used. Shouldn't we remove this tag and update this page a bit, leaving it as a policy summary only? Solidest (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there clear, unambigious, algorithmic step-by-step instructions for Wikipedia that always work that are used to distinguish between a fusion genre vs a subgenre, a subgenre vs a derivative, a derivative vs a fusion genre? The current situation is mess and the distinction (from my experience) is very often not supported by any sources. Sources, unless very specific, don't usually do phylogenetic musicology and instead use ambigious wording such as "a type of music", "a variant", "a scene" and so on.

If there is no clear, algorithmic way to determine which is which among these three, I propose merging all three fields into either "derivatives" field (in my opinion, the most objective name, as it doesn't get too detailed but is still sufficiently informative to understand what the field is about), or replacing all three with "offshots" (a little bit more colloquial term, but similarly unbiased).

That's because the current situation makes it breeding ground for genre warring and WP:OR, much as infobox color used to, until it got removed. I have myself seen numerous examples (some of which I have corrected, some I haven't) where subgenre lists list derivative (footwork listed as a subgenre of house), or fusion genres list derivatives (trance listed among fusion genres in techno), but then again, who am I to judge whether trance is techno derivative. Intuition may tell someone that since Trance is a separate genre that separated from Techno, then it is a derivative, but then again, trance article itself says that Trance formed as a fusion between Techno and New Age, so the person who originally put it to fusion genres of techno also had his point. One may argue that if subgenres have their own subgenres then they are in fact derivatives and not subgenres anymore, but it is also wrong. See Hip hop music as an example: trap is it's proper subgenre, but it has its own subgenres (say, phonk), and phonk, being a sub-subgenre of hip-hop, has its own subgenres too (drift phonk). One could argue, for instance, that fusion genre is a fusion between two or more genres (two+ parent nodes, in phylogenetic approach), while subgenre always has 1 parent node, but this is also WP:OR: for the example to the contrary, take "acid techno". The article about acid techno says that acid techno derived from "acid house" and "techno" (probably it should be a fusion genre then?), but then it is listed among subgenres (not fusion genres) in Techno article. Whoever listed it among subgenres also had his rational point of view, I suppose: one could say that acid techno is "techno with 303 acid synths".

Articles with subgenre lists do not to dellineate "fusion genres" from "subgenres" either. For instance, house music has link to "complete list of house subgenres" in infobox, however that list lists not only subgenres, but also fusion genres and even some regional variants and whatelse.

There is even more to this discussion. Namely "local scenes" and "regional scenes" fields in Infobox music genres. I have noticed (in House music), that Regional variants list "Shamstep" and some african genres (which probably) derived from house. Why are they not in "derivatives"? Nowhere in the article it is said that "Shamstep" is even house music. Example to the contrary: "Baltimore club" lists "Jersey club" and "Philly club" as derivatives, while their names suggest that they may be considered "regional variants" or "local variants" (especially Philly club, which doesn't even have a separate article). Local variants, if they are used anywhere at all, in turn, get mixed with "regional variants" or "fusion genres", down to a particular editor's taste. For instance, "Celtic hip hop" is listed as "local scene" when the article it links to ("Celtic fusion") says that it's probably akin to "Celtic metal" as it incorporates celtic influences into hip hop. At the same time "Jewish hip hop" and "Desi hip hop" and "Latin hip hop" are listed among subgenres. How is Celtic hip hop not a fusion genre (or subgenre? ;]), but a local scene? WP:OR situation.

In short, if you start digging the "fusion genres" vs. "subgenres" vs. "derivatives" (vs. "regional scenes" vs. "local scenes") as they exist right now in the wild in Wikipedia, you will immediately understand that they are breeding ground for personal opinions of Wikipedians (WP:OR), often unsupported by secondary sources. If there is no 1-to-1 algorithm to differentiate them (as it would be supported by sources), I propose

1. Merging these 3 categories ("fusion genres", "subgenres", "derivatives") into one called "offshots" or "derivatives" or "derived styles" ("derived styles" is the most neutral one, imo)
2. Standartize the articles in "regional" and "local scene" fields. Namely:
   1. If article is called "[Music style name] in [country OR region]" or then it should be in regional scenes.
   2. If the article is called "[Music style name] in [city or neighborhood]" then it should be among local scenes.
   3. If article is called "[Scene name] scene", then it should be in local scenes.
   4. By this algorithm, "Detroit techno" would unambigiously appear among "derived styles", because "Techno in Detroit" is, again, unambigiously different topic (because minimal techno and ghettotech also originated in Detroit) and "House in Chicago" is very different from "Chicago house" (the former is a scene including Chicago house, ghetto house and whatelse, the latter is a style of music).
3. If the list of derived styles (or regional scenes, or local scenes) is longer than 10, autocollapse it
4. Derived styles should be listed in alphabetic order, separated by dots

If you agree to this, I will implement all the required changes myself. Please vote 178.121.41.135 (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. I fully support the removal of fusion genres, as this has never been something explicitly stated and is not used in any other database. And it can be interpreted in any way by different sources. Half of the Wikipedias in other languages dropped this section a long time ago.

2. I'm totally against combining subgenres and derivatives. It's pretty clear here that a subgenre is a subtype/subclass when the new genre is a variation of the parent genre that keeps most of the characteristics of the parent. This is literally what helps you distinguish between house and bass music. And derivative is when the genre is not a variation, but has only one or few parent's characteristics - is inspired by it, but is being a subclass of other genre. This is just how structures and databases works. If you mix subclass + influences then it makes no sense that there is even a structure. And it would also make the categorization of genres on wiki completely meaningless. And the separation of this is often indicated by sources that say the genre is a type/style/subgenre/variant of another genre, or that is is only influenced by or the other genre uses single elements of the first.

Like, I absolutely do not see the benefit to merging subgenres and derivatives of electro house. Electro house has influenced future bass, electro-hop, brostep, skwee, wonky, and many many more; and it has direct subspecies — fidget house, dutch house, complextro. And when you show a list of 30+ genres instead of structure-based sections, it won't be helpful, but unreadable and harmful.

3. It seems to me that it makes sense to change "Derivatives" to "Influenced" to make this category more obvious to use and away from Subgenres.

4. I also question the need to separate regional and local scenes. It seems to me that it is more correct to merge them simply into "Scenes" and list only links to what is actually a scene (you're right in comparing Chicago house vs House in Chicago; the first is genre, the latter is scene). All other listings of assumed scenes stated nowhere in wiki is just insignificant and redundant to list in infobox. Solidest (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I like your ideas. I support removal of fusion genres and merging them with subgenres, as my original post would suggest.

I wanted to clarify a few things though. I am against changing "Derivatives" to "Influenced" because of this very simple argument: there are genres that influenced everything. Take rock music. Take disco. I remember reading some source back in the past, and it was a printed magazine, IIRC, that insisted that the spirit of disco music lived in crunk and snap music. Any trap rapper would claim they were influenced by rock in their fairly reliable interviews. You get the idea. So "Influenced" would create a horrible clutter in many articles, and would create more WP:OR and genre-warring.

Now that you think that derivatives should be left in, could you please think of and specify an unambigious algorithm to differentiate derivative from subgenre, so that the algorithm could be used without mis-interpretations in the future? I mean step-by-step deterministic algorithm.

I had three ideas and based on them I decided that "Derivatives" is redundant. I am outlining them:

1. My first idea was this criterion (which doesn't work, as I said earlier): subgenre with sub-subgenres is derivative. It doesn't work. Example: Trap music is a subgenre of hip hop, but has it's own subgenres. Metal is a genre (or subgenre) of rock but has tons of subgenres.
2. My second idea was this criterion (which also doesn't work): if subgenre has a suffix of a genre it is a subgenre, not a derivative. It doesn't work. Example: house music and witch house, two unrelated genres. Wave music and vaporwave, two unrelated genres. Frenchcore and slowcore, two completely unrelated genres.
3. Most important thing is that two previous ideas (criterions) are complete OR, which has no place in Wikipedia.
4. So we must rely on secondary sources to distinguish subgenres from derivatives.
5. Reliable media mostly doesn't care if the style they describe is a "subgenre" or "derivative" of something. This means it would be fairly impossible for every given genre to find a source to distinguish if it is a derivative or subgenre. Now, such sources exist for some genres, but the use of language that may pinpoint to "derivation" is often so arbitrary. Here is a heavy example: https://books.google.com/books?id=1XMqEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA61 - this book says, quoting: "Acid house derived from house but was harder and incorporated the distinctive TB-303 generated sequences.". It is obvious that acid house is a subgenre of house, but the source frivolously implies derivation. Now, another fairly reliable source claims the opposite: https://www.masterclass.com/articles/acid-house-music-guide, quoting: "Acid house is a subgenre of house music that is associated with one very specific piece of equipment: the Roland TB-303 Bass Line synthesizer.". So this is a serious ambiguity and according to reliable sources we should put Acid house in both subgenres and derivatives, if they are both left.

On the topic of leaving in both "regional scenes" and "local scenes" or merging them I am undecided. I only think that there should be systematic naming for articles about scenes: "[Music style name] in [Location]". Whether or not separate local and regional scenes is debatable. From one side, it is 100% algorithmically easy to distinguish "Country, region" from "city, town, neighborhood". It would also prevent some clutter (to leave two). But from the other side, you are right, this is an artificial separation. So I also mostly agree with you on scenes.

Now the derivatives vs. subgenres is unresolved topic. 178.121.41.135 (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I thought about it a bit more right now, how about removing Derivatives altogether from the infobox and leaving only subgenres in. The only genres left in subgenres should be those, for whom the reliable source explicitly saying "[X] is a variant/form/style/type of [Y]" exists. That would keep article focused on its topic. And, if there are derived styles or styles that the genre influenced, then it should be function of article's text, perhaps they should be mentioned in "Legacy" or "Influence" section based on sources. So the unambigious algorithm would be:

1. Merge fusion genres and subgenres.
2. If reliable source exists that says "[X] is a variant/form/style/type of [Y]", then [Y] should be listed as subgenre among subgenres of Y in text
3. If 1. holds and only if 1. holds, Y can be put to subgenres infobox of X. That underlines the summarizing function of infobox - if something is not in the text, it should not be in infobox.
4. Any article about music scene should be named "[Music style name] in [Location]"
5. Currently existing local scenes should merged with regional scenes into "Scenes".
6. If reliable source exists that says "[X] influenced/helped to shape/was among roots of/etc [Y]", then [Y] should be mentioned as being influenced by [X].
7. As influences and cross-pollination are hyper-abundant among genres, delete "Derivatives" section of infobox to prevent clutter. Only leave mentions of influences in article's text.
8. Subgenres and scenes should be given strictly in alphabetic order
9. If there are more than 10 subgenres or 10 scenes, autocollapse the sections.

How's that? 178.121.41.135 (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though I would think further about how to make stricter rules for "Derivatives" under a new name, like "Directly influenced" / "Mainly influenced' / "Directly use this genre's elements" / "Adopts genre's elements" or something like this. Because sometimes it's probably still important to show such connection between genres. And this section would also work as an oppose to "Stylistic origins" for child genre. I mean:

• Genre1 has Genre2 listed as a subgenre
• Genre3 has Genre2 listed as a derivation

Then Genre2 should have: "Stylistic origins: Genre1, Genre3, and then other justified and sourced indirect influences or abstract things that make sense."

Btw, on Wikidata, both influenced by (P737) and based on (P144) are even used separately for this purpose (and require sourcing there). They are not used there in the sense that rock or disco influenced all genres, but rather list the main influences that the sources describe in a brief summary about the genre (the most important influences are often listed like this), which would be wrong to place in "subclass of". Like ambient house is influenced by ambient, but is not subgenre of ambient music as it lacks major characteristics of the genre, or dubstep is influenced by dub and based on uk garage (evolved from into new form), but not subgenre of both.

But this would probably be problematic within Wikipedia with its RS principles, so overall I like your final plan and will support it even without all that I've written in this post.

p.s. We could also still use reverse intersection for parent/child genres - i.e. add to documentation that if a genre is a sub-genre of another genre, then the parent genre should be listed first in Stylistic origins. I recently suggested introducing a separate parameter for this purpose after removing the colors, but everyone was unanimously against it.

p.s.s. Perhaps WP:DONTHIDE (which is still being often ignored now through the lack of revision) will not allow the use of any sort of collapsing in infoboxes. Solidest (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think those requirements about reverse relationship to a parent genre from a subgenre in "stylistic origins" all can be formalized as following:

1. It should be required to add [X] to stylistic origins of [Y], if [Y] is a subgenre of [X] (if this is established by reliable sources; and based on declaration of a subgenre akin to: "[X] is a variant/form/style/type of [Y]").
2. Apart from [X], any sub-genre [Y] may have any number of other stylistic origins. The hard rule should be: if the stylistic origin is not discussed in text with a ref, it should not be in infobox.

WP:DONTHIDE is wise about technicalities, I agree and think that there should be another solution instead of autocollapsing. I modelled the autocollapsing solution based on current situation in Jazz and Hip hop music, but now I see that those decisions in their templates may be rather poor for users without JS (as it is in fact very useful to disable JS on Wikipedia website, because that increases pages load speed significantly, so I think there might be actual Wikipedia users with JS turned off). I mean, one could say that if JS is off then autocollapse should also be turned off, but, if the number of subgenres is too high, then non-collapsed list of subgenres would create clutter for users who have JS turned off. 178.121.41.135 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about autocollapsing some more and concluded that the intention to autocollapse huge subgenre/scene lists should be withdrawn entirely for UX purposes (as suggested by WP:DONTHIDE). If a genre has a lot of subgenres then so be it, all relevant subgenres that are mentioned in article's text should be listed in infobox too. They may be subdivided by decade if they are too numerous, for the ease of reading (just like it is done now in Template:Electronic dance music-footer) or left as-is in a hlist or flatlist 178.121.41.135 (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment while some of the proposals have merit, would suggest not making any blanket changes unless a broad consensus has been achieved, and to do that we need to hear from more than two editors on the matter. Without reliable sourcing much of the content on derivatives/sub-genres/fusion genres is WP:OR and should not be in an info-box in the first place. I think the purpose of "fusion genres" was to cover situations where two or more specific styles converge - combining tropes peculiar to each - to form a new sub-genre. I'm agnostic about losing this. Acousmana 15:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's for sure, moreof some detailed plan should be set up before implementing any changes even they are agreed upon, because the proposed changes, if implemented incorrectly, will break a lot of pages using that infobox 178.121.41.135 (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The main problem with fusion genres is that different sources may have different interpretation of that term. Authors may mean either subgenres or derivatives, or both at the same time (subgenre for the 1st fused genre and derivation for the 2nd). And such a field cannot be used in infoboxes within the encyclopedic approach and overall structure because of that, and also because it overlaps with other fields which have more precise definitions and meaning. Summarily this is not a systematic information and permanent characteristic (not used in the same sense between articles), but more of a loose saying overlapping other structural terms. And it can mean different meanings for different articles, depending on how the author of the source and a reader understands (or don't) it. Solidest (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is fuzz faced a reputable site which I can cite aka are they independent and respected enough for me to be able to use in a article Goldsoldier75 (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I created a draft article for music executive Elliot Grainge in my sandbox here: [4]. I’m a new Wikipedia user, and work for Elliot, which I understand is a conflict of interest according to Wikipedia policy, so I need feedback on how to improve the draft from independent editors and make sure it’s following the proper structure and guidelines. Is someone from this project available to take a look and provide feedback/comments? Thanks. Musicfan100 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Compas#Requested move 26 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Electronic dance music—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help to disambiguate links to Maqam? It is generally better for the reader to link to specific articles rather than disambiguation pages but I do not have the expertise to know which articles the links should be going to. There are currently 71 articles (shown at Disambig fix list for Maqam) which link to this dab page. Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 11:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nasheed#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of these terms are synonymous. None of them were used at the same time, to describe the same things. Yet Wiki now treats them as largely interchangeable, with artists who were described as 'new romantic', 'new pop', 'synthpop', or even just 'pop' at the time getting the 'new wave' label. 'New wave', as used by most critics during the 1970s and 80s (irrespective of nationality), essentially referred to more commercialised versions of punk from the late 70s. It was largely perceived of as a thing of the past during the 1980s by most important critics, as is attested to on Wiki's own page. Among the public, at least in the UK, it was not widely used during the 80s either. The new wave page quotes a respected English journalist calling the formation of Duran Duran the 'death of new wave', yet Wikipedia now lists new wave among the band's primary genres and describes much of their music as such. The same genre mislabels are used for hundreds of other (mostly British) pop artists active during the 80s, none of whom would ever have been described as such by contemporaries. It is, I am afraid, utterly all without sense.

'New wave', the 'new romantics', and the 'new pop' were each and all distinct phenomena. All three were in one form or another reactions to the punk moment of 1976/77, but they were not the same. 'New wave' came first - it was artists like The Jam, Elvis Costello, XTC, Joe Jackson, The Specials, etc. It did include some synthesiser groups like Tubeway Army and the Buggles, but they were not the main component. It was always a broad term, but it had a short life. It went largely out of currency after 1980. This is supported by sources, quoted on both the Wiki pages for synthpop and new wave. The indiscriminate usage of 'new wave' for seemingly any and all 80s mainstream British chartpop would have struck contemporaries, as it strikes me, as utterly bizarre and not a little offensive. Artists who were described as new romantic, new pop, synthpop, or pop have been retroactively turned into 'new wave', by order of Wikipedia. As I've said, these genres were all quite distinct from new wave, and I'd be happy to hear others' definitions, but I think Wikipedia actually does a pretty good job defining each genre on its own page. You'll notice I call them genres, even though Wikipedia never includes New Romantic on genre lists. If we want to call it a fashion sensibility or cultural movement instead of a music genre, fine. But it was certainly used, at the time, as a way to define and categorise music, much like other genres. Currently, Wikipedia seems to consider 'Madchester' and 'mod revival' as 'genres', which like New Romantic were cultural/fashion movements as much as music forms (though in fact, New Romantic was actually far less vague and had a more easily definable sound than either those terms - that sound, of course, being synthpop). In any case, it's wholly incorrect to conflate the New Romantics with 'New Wave'. For now, just a few sources on that, because it's getting late:

The page British pop music (clearly written from a knowledgeable British perspective) correctly categorises 'punk and new wave' as genres of the 1970s, whilst 'New Romantic and the Second British Invasion' are defined as belonging to the 1979-1985 period. Similarly, the page British rock music has one section for 'Proto-punk, punk and new wave', and an entirely separate section for 'Electronic rock in the early 1980s' (under which are the subsections 'Synth rock', 'New Romantics', and 'The second British invasion').

Here's a 5 page piece from Rolling Stone magazine on the New Romantics (specifically Visage) from 1981 - no mention of 'new wave' (besides 'punk is dead'). Plenty of talk, though, about Bowie and electro-disco.

And here's another bit from Rolling Stone in 1981 (reprinted in another paper) about Japan, who Wikipedia defines as 'an English new wave band': 'Pity the natty Anglo-dandies of Japan. Too late for the glam-rock movement, reviled in the New Wave era, these veteran fops - led by David "The Most Beautiful Man in the World" Sylvian - would seem made to order for the age of the clothes-conscious New Romantic bands.'

'Reviled in the New Wave era,' but 'an English new wave band' in 2024 according to Wikipedia. Just like Duran Duran, I suppose. Jinglyjangle (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you, more directly and concisely, outline what changes you want to make, and what reliable sources directly support said changes? Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But this is a major issue that requires a lot of (seemingly American) users to challenge their preconceived notions of what 'New wave' music is, so I'm not anticipating easy agreement. What I'd ask for is that these users keep an open mind and examine the views of full-length monographs and respected music critics, which in an encyclopedic work ought to be preferred over popular misconceptions. A 'reliable source' reporting on a Spandau Ballet reunion concert from 2015 might offhandedly refer to them as 'new-wave', but their word ought not to be taken over professional music journalists who were published during the 80s and have since published detailed retrospective works. It is quite obviously the case that an NPR journalist in the twenty-first century will not be as acquainted with the band and their cultural relevance as, say, Simon Reynolds or David Stubbs. As Smash-Hits78 detailed here, there are hundreds of artists and releases mistagged as 'new wave', supported by the flimsiest of offhanded remarks in throwaway retrospective online articles (many of which are not even credited to specific writers, like the Spandau Ballet article). Though an individual mislabeled article might not seem such a problem on its own, taken together the quantity of music miscastegorised as 'new wave' creates a narrative across Wikipedia which plainly contradicts the actual history as presented in monographs like Dave Rimmer's Like Punk Never Happened and Dylan Jones's Sweet Dreams, as well as Wikipedia's own articles on New Wave, New Romantic, and New Pop, which are better sourced than most pages for individual music artists/releases.

In short, then, I'd mostly like to see what Smash-Hits78 already proposed; namely, that Wikipedia use better sources in infoboxes when dealing with oft-confused genres like New Wave and New Pop, remove weakly supported references to 'New wave' across the encyclopedia, and consider adding 'New Romantic' as an infobox genre to reduce mislabeling. Whatever our disagreements along the way, I trust we all want music articles on Wikipedia to be as accurate, specific, and reliable as we can manage.

Also pinging Ceoil, Humbledaisy, and TangoTizerWolfstone for comment; as knowledgeable contributors with similar interests, your input would be most welcome :) Jinglyjangle (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend you read WP:VNT and WP:RGW. We've got to go by what reliable sources can verify. I've got no problems with additions you can add with reliable sources, but your comments focus a little too much on your personal opinions on reliable sources being wrong, which is not a valid stance, especially when dealing with things like genre, which are both subjective and constantly evolving over time. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jinglyjangle's basic point, which I read as terms are too readily applied on wiki to bands/albums based on poor journalism by writers contributing to other wise reliable publications. This most apparent, as detailed above, in the confusion on the development of English music after the twin shock waves of Punk and Krakwerk. That said, categorisation is not something i really follow or worry about, maybe a bit when late 70s bands are taged as Goth, but really have nothing actionable to raise. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and you're probably right not to care. I just find the lack of quality control and plain disregard for the historical record to be most irritating, especially since Wikipedia itself is cited so often by other sources. And just as irritating is the refusal of moderators to engage honestly or productively in discussions of this sort. Instead of attempting to address or acknowledge what has shown to be a problem of undue weight given to poor journalism, a moderator will default to defending the status quo, pointing to site policies inclined to inaction whilst pretending neutrality. It doesn't have to be this way, of course; I've read archived music genre discussions where users have genuinely engaged regarding the applicability of differing sources and opinions, acknowledging if the site has given undue weight to views with less reliable backing or a weaker historical basis. I thus hold out hope that critical thinking is still possible - even on Wikipedia. Jinglyjangle (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's inevitable that the definition of genres will change over time and that reliable sources will disagree. To say we should just favour one journalist over another because they are "acquainted with the band and their cultural relevance" is just WP:OR. I think this is a case where we should tell both sides of the story. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the replies above, that it's just pure WP:OR. He says new wave, New Romantic and new pop are all very different things, but they're not, they are all related. The only difference is that new wave is an actual true music genre, whereas New Romantic and new pop were temporary subcultural movements, and not genres. Note the past tense "were", but with new wave, "is", this is because music genres never die out and cease to exist. Certain genres can decline in popularity, but are always there and new music of any genre can be produced / performed at any given time. Jinglyjangle is claiming that new wave was only a temporary music movement from c. 1976 to 1982, but a lot of sources say the actual new wave era lasted till the mid-'80s, around 1984/85; yes, the new wave era did span through those specific years, but as a music genre, has never died out. So many songs from the second half of the '80s to the present day were/are still being produced and are correctly classed as new wave and that's why these many albums / songs on Wikipedia are reliably sourced as such. Songs that have the new wave sound (new wave also being an umbrella term) include related genres such as synth-pop, post-punk, gothic rock, dark wave, 2-tone, sophisti-pop, late '70s to '80s power pop / alternative rock etc. So are you Jinglyjangle now going to remove all the reliable sources that describe these songs / albums new wave from their respective articles just because these were produced and released after the new wave era? Again, new wave is a music genre that will exist forever; music genres don't just magically disappear and cease to exist for all eternity. Removing reliably sourced content to suit your British-centric biased opinions and original research goes against Wikipedia rules and you've been told before to please quit your disruptive editing and edit warring as you may not only be blocked indefinitely from the Synth-pop article as you are now, but from Wikipedia as a whole. This is just a friendly reminder, please do not feel offended. Also, Wikipedia caters to a worldwide audience; if bands and artists / songs were called new wave in the United States at the time, and we have those sources, you cannot just disagree and violate the rules, just because as you claim, the United Kingdom "stopped using the term new wave in the 1980s." And "new pop" and "New Romantic" should not be included as infobox genres, simply because they are not genres. "New Romantic" has been added many times in the past to infoboxes but has always been reverted. Like what Sergecross73 said, your sourced additions of "new pop" and other content is fine, but do not remove new wave and its sources just because other sources say otherwise. Hiddenstranger (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any confidence that a blanket solution exists for this problem. The sources differ on these issues for many reasons including contrary factions at the start, changing viewpoints over time, and sheer laziness in English composition. I think we must live with overlapping confusion and tell the reader that a particular genre topic has been represented in two or three or four different manners, attributing who said what when. If modern musicologists have attempted to sort it out, those would be the most authoritative and definitive sources. Definitely not magazine and newspaper music reviews from the 1980s, etc. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the considerate reply. I understand how it's to difficult to sort with so many contradictory and conflicting sources, but I still think that if Wikipedia were to rely on better journalistic sources (contemporary or not) for genre categorisation there would be far less confusion around (as well as far less music labeled as) 'New Wave'. See my most recent comment here. Jinglyjangle (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that you are trying to fix the world rather than report objectively on the world. I'm sticking to my previous assessment: we should tell the readers what the sources say, giving attribution where necessary. We should NOT dismiss or diminish contradictory sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After encountering the latest bizarre miscategorisation of a British group as supposedly New Wave, I checked out the article's talk page to see if anyone else had noted this phenomenon on Wikipedia, and how widespread it is. Unsurprisingly they had. Engagement at that discussion has brought me here. I fully agree with Jinglyjangle's comments above.

That "Wikipedia caters to a worldwide audience" does not mean that recent/American usage of terms (if that's what it is) prevails over what are, in large part, concerns about a strong divergence in WP:ENGVAR/MOS:TIES in regard to this terminology. That should be respected, not dismissed as "British-centric biased opinions".

VNT indeed but it seems plain that many nominally RS, in this sphere, are no such thing. Overhauling how we weight such sources may be the key to this.

Don't get me started about "sophistipop"... Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this boils down to how, mostly, British and American sources have defined these terms for 45+ years. Not sure how "recent" this is--I would imagine that the Valley Girl soundtrack has been labeled in RS "new wave" hundreds of times over the past 41 years. I just finished I Want You Around: The Ramones and the Making of Rock ‘n’ Roll High School, which confirms the story that Seymour Stein in part adopted/promoted "new wave", stolen from the French New Wave, because he thought "punk" was hurting sales. The Ramones, on the other hand, considered themselves, unironically, a pop band in the Bay City Rollers mold, for years, so... A good article on new wave, as Binksternet noted, would explain the differences between British and American conceptions, without resorting to "many people wrongly think that..."-type stuff. WP is dependent on what reliable sources say ... which is why we have a list of one-hit wonders in the United States that is full of artists who had multiple hits. I like the Dave Rimmer book, but it's not the only work that can be looked to. Caro7200 (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference in application is so stark that perhaps there should be some means of distinguishing what the intention of the term is in a given context. Not sure if separate articles to link to is a bit too far ("New wave music (UK application)"/"New wave music (US application)"?); otherwise links to subsections of the one article? And the world isn't just the US and the UK. How/is the term applied elsewhere? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think having different pages is a reasonable idea, but good luck getting an admin to even take you seriously. A few years back someone proposed something similar on the talk page for British pop music, but predictably, unless you raise a stink about things (which I've had to do, unfortunately) nobody will notice (and when they do, they'll be as dismissive as we have seen here).

I think our only hope is to get more British Wikipedians involved in this conversation, which I tried to do by tagging a few upthread (a couple were involved in a discussion on the Duran page), but since I have roughly zero connections or influence on this site there's very little I can do except argue and hope somebody decides to listen (still waiting). Jinglyjangle (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is (or would be) considered canvassing. If you're trying to bring more participants to a discussion, it must be done neutrally, not targeted only towards people you believe will support your argument. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on the sophistipop thing, the singer for the Blow Monkeys (also tagged as new wave, because of course) actually said in an interview that he's tried to get it removed from Wikipedia but they won't let him! Good to know it's not just us :-)

By the way, out of curiosity, what group was it whose 'New Wave' tag made you decide to visit the talk page? I was thinking perhaps the most absurd example I've ever seen (endless choices, but if I could only pick one) is When in Rome. Apparently, AllMusic says so, and since they're a 'reliable source', that's that. I wish it were possible for Wikipedians to admit that 'generally reliable' does not mean 'always reliable all the time', or even for some new policy to be implemented (the New Wave rule?) requiring a higher standard of sources for heavily disputed content that differs by region. Another thing I noticed, by the by, is that a single editor, Hiddenstranger, seems to be largely responsible for much of what is mislabeled as new wave, thanks to a truly prolific amount of edits over many years. The site administrators might choose to be concerned by this, but naturally they have more important things to be troubled with like dismissing concerns over regional and ageist bias. Jinglyjangle (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thing I've noticed - you love to complain about how things are done, but don't offer any constructive path forward. Perhaps that's why you don't make the progress you desire? Rather than the pity party, have some self-reflection. None of your arguments involve any sort of policy or guideline. You don't respond to anyone who bring up concerns about policy or guidelines. We've talked for a week now, and I still don't understand your proposed approach. What is it? "Let JingleJangle write whatever they want with only the sources they approve of?" Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"..largely responsible for much of what is mislabeled as new wave, thanks to a truly prolific amount of edits over many years." - Totally untrue. Know the truth before you speculate. Do not be judgmental. The majority of bands & artists on here labeled as new wave were already labeled and sourced as such before I even joined Wikipedia. I did add new wave to a few more, but with reliable sources. Also, leaving personal attacks on my Talk page will only make things worse for you. So please be civil. And because of your tone and choice of words, your style of editing, and disregard for certain policies and rules, that is the work of a disruptive editor. You're also involved in a lot of edit and genre warring. Please listen to @Sergecross73. And again, new wave is a music genre. It appears that what you want is to label bands and artists "new pop" (not a real genre but a term applied to a short-lived music movement), and label only a handful of certain bands and artists / albums and songs as new wave, but only if they were active / released during the new wave era. But even for artists active during the new wave era, whose pages are well sourced and you disagree that they're new wave, that's when the edit warring starts. Please realize this kind of behavior is not allowed on here. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, though, the 'American' view seems to have been more what people anecdotally thought at the time than what reliable sources recorded. Based on all I've seen and read (and this is attested to on wiki's own page, with sources), critics made a distinction between 'New Wave' (referring to artists like the Boomtown Rats circa 1977-1980) and 'New Music' (the industry term for British pop like Culture Club and Duran Duran). Much of the US public, evidently, did not - and it is members of that public, I suspect, who have written the online sources now cited all over Wikipedia. Stephen Thomas Erlewine, for example, who was a child during the 80s, probably watched MTV and had a different (or less informed, one might say) view of what 'New Wave' meant than Robert Christgau. Truly not trying to be backwardly ageist here, but do we really think people who were children at the time had as developed an understanding of pop music developments as professional music journalists? Should their views be far more represented across Wikipedia (and here's where the real ageism comes in) since they, being several generations younger, had the privilege to compile online databases like AllMusic, write for the websites of online publications, and edit Wikipedia in far greater numbers than their elders? Should British people of a certain age - of the same generation as Erlewine, in fact - be left thinking they come from a parallel universe when they read that Kajagoogoo were a 'British new wave band'? Jinglyjangle (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is relevant. Writer's age or what you speculate they were watching when they were young, none of these things are the sorts of things that Wikipedia considers valid points in determining source reliability. It's getting rather troubling you felt it appropriate to bring up any of that at all. None of that can be reconciled with Wikipedia policy. Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for separate articles, all we need is a variety of reliable sources to discuss it at its various angles. This isn't some sort of isolated incident, this stuff happens in music all the time. Genre is a subjective thing, and its interpretation changes over time. Back when Fall Out Boy and Panic at the Disco blew up in the mid-2000s, all the "traditionalists" complained that they "weren't real emo". Now the label is commonplace. When nu metal blew up in the late 1990s, all the old heavy metal fans complained that it "wasn't real metal". Johnny Cash fans don't think Luke Bryan is "real country". There's currently a movement of pop punk happening that doesn't sound much like its start up in the 1990s. It goes on and on. We're all free to have our own opinions and interpretations on it personally, but as long as we're acting as editors on Wikipedia, we need to WP:STICKTOSOURCEs, which means documenting varying viewpoints, not erasing the ones that don't meet our preferences. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure why STICKTOSOURCES etc. is being raised as it’s quality/reliability thereof that is being disputed; clearly valid to raise.

This not about comparison of the use of a category for one (new) act that has also been applied to another (older) one. It’s about the meaning of the term for the very same act, to different constituencies. “New wave” means something to both and if that is significantly different for one of them, we misinform that constituency. That that constituency is the one where the act originates should give it particular consideration. It is not reasonable to just expect Brits to see the term being applied and a) know the American use of the term and b) that that is what is being applied. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because, if not you, the OP is proposing removing sources that are established reliable sources simply because it doesn't conform with their preferred sources and their preconceived notions about the genre. This isn't a "Brits versus Murica" type situation. No one appears against including the properly sourced British viewpoint. They're against the erasure of differing viewpoints from reliable sources. That part is the problem. Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

II must have missed it that proposition. ""Brits versus Murica" is rather an innovative way of summarising "It is not reasonable to just expect Brits to see the term being applied and a) know the American use of the term and b) that that is what is being applied". Unless you are saying that is reasonable?

Do we have a note in every applicable article that Brits wouldn't regard the act as being new wave? Asterisk every mention with a disclaimer? Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not really understanding what you're saying anymore. My point is simply that it should all be documented if that's what reliable sources are saying, even if it's inconsistent with your own experience. Same goes to anyone, regardless of where they're from. Sergecross73 msg me 22:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it may not have been clear I was posing a question as it was initially framed as a statement and the second time it may have appeared rhetorical, so I'll modify it: "(Is it) reasonable (particularly in articles with strong ties to the UK) to just expect Brits to see the term (new wave) being applied and a) know the (significantly different) American use of the term and b) that that is what is being applied"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to me. As Serge pointed out, it's common with just about every genre, and the wikilink is there if the reader should be confused.Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per my point above, Serge's example is not at all analagous. The user isn't aware that they are "confused" as the term is clear to them, but different to what is intended. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To say it's "not analogous" is hairsplitting. My point is that different interpretations of musical genre is commonplace, and yet we get by just fine. Across many genre, there's people, like some of the participants here, who try to paint genre as a hard, objective thing, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. That stance, on Wikipedia, borders too close to WP:RGW. We're not here to "set the record straight", we're simply here to document it as reliable sources document it. If reliable sources have differing viewpoints, so do we. Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether subject A fits into category X is a completely different matter to term X means one thing in one place, something quite different in another.

I have posed a question three times, there has been no response any of those times but you have instead made several "points" that are neither contentious to me nor pertinent to my question. I’ll try again.

It's broadly in the realms of List of words having different meanings in American and British English. I'm not objecting to it being noted that, in one part of the world, term X is applied to an act but, particularly if the article has strong ties to another part of the world where that term would mean something distinct, it is reasonable that this should be highlighted, very, very clearly. People who are familiar with the term to mean something else entirely can not be expected to click on a link to it to disabuse themselves of a misapprehension that they don’t know they hold. If our purpose is to inform, we are actively misinforming these people, if unintentionally and through neglect, due to their, valid but different, understanding of the term. That is far from “just fine”. Surely we’re not happy to leave this unaddressed?

Are we? RSVP. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am. It's silly to suggest this is a dichotomy. The meaning in the English press has changed considerably. Greil Marcus may have an entirely different meaning to a reviewer in Billboard. There are many others countries with reviews. A push to clarify the subtleties of every use "new wave" is bound to cause more confusion than comprehension. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've said multiple times that I'm fully supportive of added context for various interpretations of genre supported by reliable sources. How does that not answer your question? But it's not like that requires an second article or something. What I'm against is this "There's only one correct interpretation of genre and it's mine and I'm deleting anything contrary" stuff that seems to be alluded to by some. Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attributing to me this view that I have not only not expressed but have disavowed. Me, I'm against this... car theft stuff.

Let's break it down into parts and we can deal with whether this applies to the term new wave separately and, if so, by what means the matter may be resolved. Do you accept that, when a term (any term) is used to mean substantially different things in different places, there is a strong likelihood that the use of said term, unqualified, in an article with strong ties to a place, will lead those from that place to have a different understanding to that intended? That can only really be answered yes or no, so if you can give me that we'll have moved a bit. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. To be clear, I'm not accusing you of anything. This is not a one on one conversation about you. It's a group conversation, started by someone else, about how the community should approach something. So, if I am making comments about stances you're not taking, there's always the possibility that, you know, I'm not referring to you when I say them.

The rest of your comment seems to ask...if it's conceptually possible to have different interpretations on terminology? Not sure why you're asking questions like that, or how you could realistically expect someone to answer "no" to that... Sergecross73 msg me 15:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. No, I am not asking questions like that. It is not about the possibility of there being different interpretations but the consequences when there are (or were there to be, if that still needs resolving for this example, but first things first). Specifically when a term is used in a different sense to that that would be employed in the English-speaking nation with the manifestly strongest ties. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there are "consequences" in the context of musical genre, no. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've started a step too far for me. I don't believe that the term means substantially different things in different places. I believe each reviewer, regardless of their origin, has a slightly different meaning for the term "new wave". That's the case with all genres.Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73, there is no consequence when someone sees a term (and we're not at this stage talking about this term or this genre) that they have every reasonable expectation conveys one meaning, when in fact it has another? This is inconsequential, for a work of reference, seriously? We just have to accept that some people come here and leave with a mistaken impression? Doctorhawkes, too far? How much further back could I take it than to ("first things first") talk about the consequence of a term having an unexpected meaning to a constituency. If we can agree on that baby step, we can discuss whether it applies to this particular term and then steps that could be taken to avoid the state of affairs. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer might be a good idea, actually. Currently very peeved by this in the Culture Club article: 'Culture Club's music combines British new wave and American soul and pop.' Going to publish another edit and hope it stays (I feel like I'm bending over backwards to be reasonable and still not being met halfway). Jinglyjangle (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I came across this topic on the talk page for new wave and I'd like to share my thoughts. As a background, I acknowledge that I have a history of reverting edits related to 17th century history, which I regret, but since then I've become really interested in old music and have read a lot of Wikipedia pages as well as music books and articles. I wasn't around in the 80s or even the 90s, but based on what I've read and reading what people have said in this thread it seems like the British users have made stronger points which haven't really been answered, and I say that as an American. From all the reading I've done about music history and conversations I've had with older people, a mix of British and American, it does seem to suggest that the way new wave was used and understood in the country where a lot of it came from (UK) and by most critics in America is in line with what Jinglyjangle and Mutt Lunker have been arguing and that the other way is basically a misunderstanding.

Growing up in America in the 21st century, I was exposed to the other idea of new wave, where it seems like among some people the idea has been passed down that new wave was basically a synonym for British synth-pop. I asked my parents, both American, what new wave means to them, and my dad, who is a few years older, said his main associations were with Elvis Costello, Talking Heads, and Blondie, while my mom just said "stuff with synthesizers". So among Americans even there seems to be a divide. But based on the reading I've done it seems like what my dad said is right, and my mom is wrong. The new wave page talks about how the main American critics used new wave in basically the same way it was used in Britain, while it was only among some Americans that the terminology drifted pretty far away. I think this probably happened because a lot of common people who were only casual music fans didn't know what the term new wave referred to and misapplied it. I told my mom that I think her definition is wrong and I explained to her the actual meaning of new wave, and she said I'm probably right and that she just didn't pay that much attention back then, which supports my hypothesis.

Anyway, I can't accept the idea that by calling stuff new wave that wasn't, we can make it so. It seems like if we accept that then we've basically given up on truth. If I say the sky's purple, even if the New York Times says so, it doesn't make it true. I think we have to recognize that a lot of the modern American sources have got it wrong because, like me, they were brought up in a culture where the mistaken view has sort of been the norm among people younger than my dad and people who weren't music critics in the 70s/80s. But since it's mistaken, since those UK bands weren't actually part of the new wave movement as it really and truly was a thing that existed in Britain, I don't think we can categorize them that way without being dishonest. I noticed that the page for New Romantic contains this line: "Other aspiring bands of the era including ABC, Depeche Mode, the Human League, Soft Cell, Simple Minds, Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark and Talk Talk have all at some point been inaccurately associated with the New Romantic movement." If we're willing to recognize that sources have gotten it wrong in labeling the New Romantics, I think we should do the same and recognize that a lot of bands have been inaccurately labeled as new wave. I have gone out and looked and found sources online for each one of those listed bands describing them as New Romantic, from reliable sources, yet Wikipedia has decided to preemptively rule them out due to those being recognized as inaccurate associations based on the real music history, so I think we have to do the same for all the stuff which has been incorrectly labeled as new wave.

Also anecdotally, I'm currently visiting London and I've been to lots of record shops, and I've noticed that new wave is never categorized with synth-pop or 80s music. All the record stores I've been to have had either punk/new wave sections or post-punk/new wave sections and then a separate area for "80s electro", "synth pop" or something similar. All the groups like Duran Duran etc. are kept in the latter category. And I've also made some edits to the new wave page to try to add on to jinglyjangle's edits, mostly by looking at American sources I've found online but also some British ones. I'll keep looking at the related pages like new pop, New Romantic etc. to see if there are more improvements I can make, fixing bias and adding new sources and that sort of thing, but I think something should also be done with all the pages for individual artists. Because now if you read the pages for new wave and new pop, they basically support everything jinglyjangle and mutt have been saying and they use a lot more sources than most of the artist pages, which usually only have a few short articles at best for sourced genres. So now you get stuff that doesn't make any sense, like Duran Duran being new wave on their own page, but the "death of new wave" on the actual genre page. I think if we're going to recognize new wave as a real thing, which it was, we've got to be honest with our readers by admitting when sources have got it wrong, like we do on the New Romantic page. We can't just say "this is new wave", presenting it as undisputed fact, just because one article said so once, because sometimes they'll get things wrong or miss out on important subtleties and distinctions, or the reporter might just not know any better. We should credit people who have done the research and work, we should explain new pop or New Romantic to people who don't know what they are, instead of hiding that information from them and assuming they wouldn’t understand. If my mom thought Duran Duran were new wave before, she should be able to find out better by visiting Wikipedia, instead of having her wrong impression confirmed. If we don't give people all the information, which means having accurate genre boxes, we'll also be lying to people who weren't there, like me, and who want to know the real history of how those British music movements developed one after the other, in the clubs and the discotheques and the pages of the music press. If I wasn't as obsessive about this period of British music as I am I'd probably be misinformed myself, just from looking at Wikipedia infoboxes, but I've dug stuff up and read music history books as well as old magazines and things. We shouldn't force people who want to know the truth to do that, we should summarize the information accurately in artist infoboxes as well as on genre pages.

We can present different points of view, but that doesn't mean not keeping it real by having info in the infoboxes that just ain't so. Just because something is minimally verifiable and can be included, should it be? Verifiability yes, but truth still matters as this essay says, and relevancy matters, and context, and author POV and so forth. Even more important, people like my mom and me before I delved deeper will get the wrong idea looking at artist pages, cause with infoboxes people just assume that whatever is in there is true, and lots of people won't click through onto the genre page and read about what new wave actually is. This is supported by a video I saw about an edit war over the Austro-Hungarian flag where one side had lots of books, articles etc. showing the country's naval ensign as its national flag, but guess what, those verifiable sources turned out to all be wrong, yet the idea spread all over the Internet and further into real life cause of the infobox. And the wrong flag was actually based on a historical misconception, where lots of foreign sources used the naval ensign to represent all of Austria-Hungary because they didn't differentiate between the different imperial flags and just chose one to cover them all, while in Austria-Hungary each flag was used more specifically for different regions. To be honest I think we've got something very similar going on here with new wave, new pop, and New Romantic all being collapsed into one by foreign sources who didn't properly distinguish between them, while in Britain they were all separate categories that described different things. My point is Wikipedians recognized the error in the sources and now war infoboxes show the flag that was actually used most often in Austria, rather than the one that foreigners mistakenly used as representation. I know I'm going off here on what might seem like a tangent, but I actually think it's a very similar situation and I'd ask everyone in this thread to please go watch the video and consider what was done in that case versus what we're doing here.

Thanks. ComeniustheGreat (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comments made by sockpuppet account. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:VNT and WP:RGW. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read both, but I think my points still stand and you didn't respond to anything I said. Why can we recognize verifiable sources as having been wrong about the New Romantics and the Austro-Hungarian flag, but not this? Did you watch the video?

Basically, I don't think Wikipedia should include things that seem based on misconceptions, which is how all this seems to me. We shouldn't include things that make people assume they're fact, when they're easily disputable at the very least if not just false. I like the idea of showing different points of view, but that's not really possible with an infobox cause everybody just assumes everything in there is true, they shouldn't, but they do. The example of the Austro-Hungarian flag shows that, and also how tons of verifiable sources can be wrong because foreign observers didn't really understand how things were conceived in the country of origin.

Honestly, I don't know why I'm wasting my time still arguing here, it's clear to me now that you have no interest whatsoever in listening to what anyone has to say. Someone who's British shouldn't have to come to these pages and be so upset that we're mangling their history. And they have every right to be upset, they themselves might have been punks, New Romantics, goths or whatever, and what this seems like, what it is, is a bunch of people who haven't a clue invalidating their entire lived experience and telling them that no, actually, we know better than you, we don't care what the truth is, it's all the same to us so we don't care, this is how Wikipedia is and it's not going to change. The reason I'm upset, why it matters to me even though I'm not British and really have no stake in any of this, is because this is the music I love and live for nevertheless and seeing you be so dismissive, so utterly careless about the history and treating those with an interest in preserving it the way you've done is not only incredibly unkind, it's terrible practice for an encyclopedia with so much reach and influence. I'm a historian in training, I believe in the value of historical documentation and evidence, of looking at sources with a critical eye, and this all seems totally alien here. This isn't a place of learning, of discussion, of open-mindedness, it's a place of meanness, arbitrary power, and utter thoughtlessness. I'm not naturally cynical and I think most people on Wikipedia probably come with good intentions, but I've now realized there's nothing I can do that would make any difference whatsoever. When my book about British indiepop of the mid-80s sees the light of day, I just hope I'll be able to do the past and the people whose lives are entangled with it some of the justice that has been denied here. ComeniustheGreat (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, we "have no interest whatsoever in listening" to someone's personal opinions, totally lacking support in reliable sources. If you want to have leverage here, you must cite reliable sources and describe how you think they should be summarized in the best manner. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of rambling monologues are going to ever gain a consensus if they aren't rooted in any policy. (And even if they could, they don't present an actionable path for moving forward anyway.) Slow down and learn how Wikipedia works so you can give a policy-based stance on the matter. You're just going to burn yourself out if you stick with the wall-of-text anecdotes and edit warring like you're doing now. They won't get you anywhere. Sergecross73 msg me 02:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotal stuff is useless here. Argue the sources if you wish to exert any influence at all. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late to the party here, I know, but as a fellow Brit who grew up in this era, I share Jinglyjangle and Mutt Lunker's frustrations at what was termed "new wave" in the US... in the UK, that term was very much reserved for acts of an edgier, more experimental disposition (e.g. Elvis Costello, or Joy Division)... if you had described Culture Club or Howard Jones as "new wave" you would have been laughed out of the country, and I would be very surprised if I could find a single mention of new wave being used for these acts in the UK music press of the time. That said, I have to go along with Sergecross73 and Binksternet here, much as it pains me personally – we don't really have any choice but to use the descriptions we can find in RS... we can call them both "pop" and "new wave" if there are sources for it (and I'm sure there are) and it'll mean different things on either side of the Atlantic. Richard3120 (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was really no consensus in favor of what they were trying to do (or even an actionable path forward even if they did) but for record keeping's sake, per here, virtually every participant on one side of the argument, outside of Matt Lunker, has been indeffed for sock puppetry. Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely unfamiliar with rest of the socks listed at the investigation linked above, or their edit history but I'm unclear from the investigation as to how Jinglyjangle and Janglyguitars has been linked to ComeniustheGreat. Jinglyjangle stated on their user page that they are a locked out Janglyguitars but has the former been linked to CtG by shared IP, or the like? I'd be astonished if the varyingly-coherent extended rambles of CtG above came from the same hand. The style, effectiveness and level of concision are poles apart. I only skimmed the TLDR screeds but their contribution looks more likely to undermine the credibility of anyone supposedly on the same side.

I am distinctly dissatisfied with being lumped in with a supposed "one side of the argument" in what has been a multi-faceted debate. On which subject, can you clarify as to whether you are claiming that @Richard3120: is a sock, also being on the side of the argument that the classifications are ludicrous, or that they are on the other side ("your side"?), because they regretfully agree you should be acceded to? There are several other contributors to the debate who at least partially disagreee with you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not alluding to Richard. Because, you know, he's not currently blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 01:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point. So cut the "sides" nonsense. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've entirely missed the point of my comment. I was just trying to say multiple participants, arguing the same points, were blocked as socks, and I was trying to allude to it not being you. Yeesh, I make an effort to make it clear that I'm not accusing you of something, and you've somehow taken offense to that. It certainly wasn't meant as a shot at you. Why would it? The discussion stalled out weeks ago even without the sockpuppetry. Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that intent, much appreciated, though the characterisation of the debate as a simple two-sided matter was unhelpfully wide of the mark, making the intent unclear. There are many points that I would not endorse in the sock posts above, some I'd actively oppose and the implied association with the views was and is my point, not any implication that I was another sock in the drawer. As a side note, interesting for one sock incarnation to go so far to not look like a DUCK by making their points so poorly and cumbersomely. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I'd normally handle it differently, but as the discussion above shows, most of my questions related to "What are people trying to accomplish here?" were met with rambling monologues and indirect answers, so it was rather difficult to summarize the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to have help with:

• Draft:T. Mayo Geary
• Draft:Jack Mills (music publisher) FloridaArmy (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion here about whether to move Kritika (disambiguation) to Kritika. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I had some input on many of the song pages for this album. There's a talk page here relating to the discussion. Thought that I'd like to hear input on the matter. TheCrew65 (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read an article today on the BBC news website about a manuscript shortly to go on display at Gloucester Cathedral, which records a song (words and music) sung in Barbados by enslaved people in the late 18th century.

A descriptive note on the original manuscript adds: "...A Single Negro, (while at Work with the rest of the Gang), leads the Song, and the others join in Chorus at the end of every verse - (Generally in a Minor Key - suppose E with minor 3d.)"

I understand so little about music that I do not know if what the manuscript describes is Field holler, Call and Response or Work Song, but I do think it may be appropriate to one of them. I'm flagging it in case someone musical can put it in the correct place.

https://www.bbc.co.put/news/articles/cjqegjg5dy9o

The manuscript is also listed by UNESCO:

media.unesco.org/sites/default/files/webform/mow001/barbados_uk_song_eng_0.pdf RLamb (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the names of all members who have not edited Wikipedia in the last year. Many of these users have not edited in more than 10 years.

My hope in cleaning this list is supporting people in finding collaborators. d:Wikidata:WikiProject Music has users who actively curate genres, and I think the future of this kind of content creation will include adapting Wikipedia fact-checking policies to Wikidata's structured data format.

• special:diff/1240081597/1251348273

Bluerasberry (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of that. On that note, I've added myself to the list. I mediate (and adminish) enough in the subject area that I may as well list myself on it too. Sergecross73 msg me 19:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hip hop music § Requested move 23 November 2024. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]