Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

How about we put the genre back in because it seems to have been taken out prematurely and then start a real organized discussion about whether it should be taken out. Discuss, then act. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See the last comment that was made two sections up. That's already been suggested. Everyone dodges the question. Orane (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just bring it back, I have never seen this kind of negative reaction towards a hi-risk template change before. Admins, no one of those explanations have convinced me (and I think most of the editors agree with me) Just bring that field back please.--Kmaster (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's not necessarily the Admins who deleted the genre field. I'm an Admin, and I'm totally against it. We're working to get it back. If you know anyone else who wants it back, to comment on the field's removal, tell them to come here and express their view. Orane (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. And what about WP:CANVAS? Quote: "Messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." --Kleinzach 05:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not guilty of campaigning, excessive cross posting or vote stacking. Just a friendly notice to one editor, which is not against the guideline. Orane (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"If you know anyone else who wants it back, tell them to come here and express their view." That's what you wrote. What can that mean except canvassing? --Kleinzach 05:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Cannot find any Wikipedia rule that would ban agitation. PS. Also, is it OK to strikethrough other people's messages? Netrat (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Orane (Journalist) struckthrough his own text. Nothing wrong with that. --Kleinzach 22:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job on the subtle little hint there, Orane. Additional note to Orane: You should probably (just a suggestion) watch your behaviour in these discussions as you're coming across as rather aggressive and brash. Don't take it so seriously and you won't upset people. People may also respect your opinions more if you're being polite and thoughtful. Learn from WD's example. Utan Vax (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is now 340 k - equivalent to nearly six normal-sized archives. I've numbered the sections for clarity and future reference. I hope that is OK with everybody. Would anybody object if I started archiving the sections? The present page may already be too large for some readers to navigate. --Kleinzach 05:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be archived until consensus is reached, as conversations throughout the page are relevant to consensus. Numbering sections may not be a good idea, as it will break links from other pages to conversations here, which was a problem before. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't archive, as this is the CURRENT discussion Netrat (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't archive yet please. Resolution possible, please allow such.--Alf ^melmac 10:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I won't archive yet. Thanks for responding. --Kleinzach 11:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm restoring the original name of the first section. There are links to that section from a number of other talk pages, directing editors to this discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing the numbers makes the whole debate even more incoherent. Links directing other editors to this page will still work - there's no problem - and the links could have been corrected anyway. --Kleinzach 11:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

with the section names changed the RFC notice doesn't lead to the RFC section of the page anymore - i tried changing the name of the section back, but it didn't help; i guess it needs to be re-listed under the new section name. and then any pages where the RfC has been "publicized" will have to be updated as well. Klein, would you like to take care of relisting it, or ... ? thanks Sssoul (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What link is the problem? --Kleinzach 11:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've restored a second section header back to its original name. This fixes the link from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks Mudwater - when i tried that it didn't seem to work, for some reason, but it does now. Sssoul (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A message from a formerly active contributor

I'm very glad to see that finally the "music genres" in popular music are going to be removed from infoboxes; if "music genres" related articles will be dramatically reduced in this site, I will consider to come back. In my opinion, the main point is that most of people, including most of press and music fans, cannot say the difference between "music genre" and "musical scene", I mean that in most of cases, I'd say almost always, musical scenes are referred to as music genres. Doktor Who (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the way the majority of people feel Dok. But there is a vocal minority who wish to try and salvage them. Every side must be heard. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's the key to bringing you back, Doktor Who, then honestly, you can stay. Your presence on Wikipedia has no bearing on this discussion. Orane (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

RealLibs, how come you are the main person I have seen so far insisting that the majority of people want genres gone? Doesn't that make it just one person who wants genres gone? How can you look at this thread and think "Wow... everyone agrees with me"? Just realize people want genres back and let's move on to how we are going to deal with it. Seriously, stop being a baby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.127.155 (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Musical scene? Sounds like an original research to me. People are used to call them music genres or music styles, so WP should use that terms Netrat (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to inform everyone about the status of the genre guidelines proposal I said I was going to draw up several times on this talk page, which I hope will address the issue of how to address genres in music articles, and specifically, hopefully provide us with a solution to the infobox genre field issue. I'm really busy at the moment, both with other Wiki obligations and stuff I need to care of at work. I hope to begin work on my proposal by Thursday at the latest, and hope to present it to everyone sometime this weekend. Sorry about the delays. I'll say one thing: debate seems to be slowing down on this page, so hopefully we're all in a place now where we can calmly more forward to new solutions. I won't really be checking this page in the next few days, so if there's anything pressing you want to talk to me about before I have my proposal finished, please leave a message on my talk page. Don't kill each other while I'm busy doing work! WesleyDodds (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Take your time WD. As for killing each other, well, that's a promise that we just can't make lol. Orane (talk) 07:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing what you come up with. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please take your time, rushed guidelines might make things worse. — Realist² 16:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your ideas will be interesting. Just don't re-gurg your first options because they were pretty much a waste-o-time. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, harsh much? You know, Libs, it's funny how you're so vocal here, when just a few day ago, when the appropriate time arouse, you were strangely silent. Hmmm. Orane (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Take your time. I'm looking forward to reading your proposals. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read through the entire debate above, but I don't know if the point of duplication has been brought up. If a piece of information, such as genre, is duplicated several times in an article (article text, infobox, category), then you start to get problems with keeping it all synchronised. The minimum entries should be one entry in the text of the article, and one entry as a tag of easily extractable metadata. Categories and infoboxes are easier to extract information from than a sentence in an article (though even then, microformats can be used). My point is that if you want a list of all the Wikipedia article listed under a certain genre of music, then you need that genre information as a computer-readable tag somewhere in the article. If you only have a sentence in the article, that won't be enough, you are losing the ability to organise the information across a whole group of articles. So I'd say losing the infobox genre is OK as long as there is a category there, but if there is no category, then something needs to be added to allow tagging, whether it is an invisible tag, or a visible one like a category, or one that also functions as an infobox field. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK Duplication has not been raised as an issue so far - and it's important. IMO key identifiers (such as genres) should be categories. That's the norm on WP. --Kleinzach 00:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So there's reason number 57 not to have a genre field. Valid point. Most rock articles tend to be "category overkill" with a lot a parent category duplication. So occasionally an article might show up categorised as: an alternative rock band... an American alternative rock band... an alternative rock band from Texas... and an alternative rock band from Houston... etc. If the article had no genre field...hmmm??? I wonder what genre that band might be??? Even if the categories were cleaned up... one would still be there to tell what the genre is supposed to be. Even allows for multiple cats if there is consensus to do so. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Libs, that makes no sense. The problem would lie with the text or the categories. Since genres are supposed to be sourced in the infobox (and again, many are), then the categories should be synchronized with this, and naturally, the text will do the same. Again, as long as it's sourced. Orane (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations in infoboxes are frowned upon. Citations belong in the article body... not the little box. That has been beat to death a thousand times over right here on this page... right in the midst of the current debate. Even when citations were placed in the little box (see edit history for Deftones)... when people disagree with the citations.... they just blank them right along with genres they don't like. Or they introduce citations to fit the genres they want to see. You can't have a point/counter-point argument in a little box thats designed for non-subjective content. But you can have differing points of view, re:genres, within an article's main text and still maintain verifiability and be encyclopedic. Like the lead-in for the AC/DC article. It displays, w. refs, the styles they are known for(some causing ferocious debate but... you can't delete a reliable source)... and, with refs, it explains how they view themselves too. All opinions covered... all done in an encyclopedic way. Debatable content belongs in the article body. And for albums... example: U2's The Joshua Tree is categorised as... easy enough... a U2 album. And when you check the actual "Category:U2 albums"... there it is... Category:alternative rock albums. As easy as pie and ice cream. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations are frowned upon by who? A small number of people who find it inconvenient? It's just a small superscript at the end of a word. What's the problem with it? It exists in many infoboxes, and that's perfectly fine with many people. If the aim of this whole thing is to minimize edit wars, what makes you think they won't fight in the body of the article. In essence, you're saying, the infobox is no place for a battle; take it to the body of the article instead. It solves nothing, ultimately. And as a side note, not everyone focuses on categories when they read an article. It's a great way to organize things on Wikipedia, but is meaningless after that. Orane (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

????? You really need to read talk pages and edit summaries a lot more often Oran. There is no small number opposed to that. Edits like this are many many many. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's actually Orane :), with the "e". Anyway, wow, you have a knack for overgeneralizing. That's just one instance you showed me, and I'm not gonna look around to find more. By right, they should be sourced, esp if likely to be challenged. I guess the editor doesn't see that info as likely to be challenged. But that doesn't excuse the fact that for most of the infoboxes I've seen, they are sourced, especially if disputed. Orane (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Can the same thing be said for albums? I like to know what genre an album is if the artist changed their music style...TheSickBehemoth (talk)TheSickBehemoth —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC).

The debate has come to a natural and exhausted end. Normally one person would sum up. Usually he or she would be the initiator - in this case Realist2 - however this the debate has been so long and complicated that the job might be too much for one individual. For fairness and neutrality, should we ask two people to summarize the arguments - for and against - one on each side? Thank you. --Kleinzach 23:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is safe to say that this issue has exploded into something quite...huge. As most of you can imagine, when I made the original post none of this drama crossed my mind, I almost expected the post to go unanswered (hindsight is a wonderful thing ;-)) Is the debate over? I'm not sure, I was waiting for something from Wesley to materialize? It seems the debate has shifted somewhat, into the possibility of new guidelines for the broader topic of music, not just the genre. One part of me wants the genre field back, my watch-list is so slow. I kind of miss the genre warriors. It must be a love/hate relationship, like a marriage. — Realist² 23:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The debate isn't over yet. There are still issues to be sorted out. As for genre warriors, I still see them in some articles, and in articles for the genres themselves. It's safe to say that eliminating something from Wikipedia does little to curb vandalism (because criminals always find a way around everything), and just makes it a worse experience for everyone. On top of that, I've seen poorly written "musical style" sections come about that are full of original research. This can hardly be described as an improvement. Sections like these shouldn't be forced on articles, but should arise from a need, or for the sake of completeness to promote an article to featured status, and should always be reliably sourced. --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been a very busy, 'Shadowy' personal pov editor that has been sniping through genre pages and adding strange, goofy and occasionally/blatantly wrong info. An admin friend is aware of the user's edits and has spoken to them about them. Hopefully it will not re-occur from that editor. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still seeing it from IPs. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Any particular range? The Real Libs-speak politely 10:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we would be advised to wait a little while until Wesley makes his proposal; at least he should do that with the benefit of hindsight of all the various viewpoints which have already been put. As for where edit-warring occurs, it's a fact of life here in any article and an artefact of that we are all volunteers, cannot sensibly prevent it unless it becomes egregious, rely on a multitude of already poorly-sourced and arguably POV sections, and suffer a lack of authoritative sources for genres. --Rodhullandemu 01:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, when I finally write out my guideline proposal, can we get someone to notify all the music WikiProjects and editors who have discussed the genre issue on this page about it? By this I mean I want someone to post here and say "I'll notify the relevant parties about the new genre guideline proposal". That way we can mitigate the problem that emerged in the first place regarding consensus, and we can have as inclusive a discussion as possible. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll notify the relevant parties about the new genre guideline proposal. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think participation needs to be broader than that, the issue with the original discussions was lack of community wide discussion, let's not make the same mistakes and have to revisit it again. People that arent already involved will be better equiped to express an objective view. I think a notice at the village pump or somewhere similar. Let's not underestimate the significance of the decisions being made, they affect a lot of articles and popular ones at that. --neon white talk 14:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Fear not. I will publicize widely, not only to previous contributors here, and list where I've publicized. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Contrarily, I think we should restore then until we have clear consensus that they should not be there. Currently, new articles on albums and bands are being created without this field, and if the field is restored down the line it will have to be manually added. If the field is present and included and later removed, it seems a much simpler matter to remove it, since no creative thought (or research skills) are required to remove the field, whilst some effort does go into identifying and adding it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. You know its funny I looked up a band for my friend and was like hmm what kind of music, but I had no idea since there was no genre field and it wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. 'Funny' you looked up a band and genre wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article. - Steve3849 ^talk 15:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Just chiming in on how much of an asinine decision this was. From what I can tell, they were removed because people had edit wars over minor musical genre/scene differences. Big deal. Since when do we remove things from Wikipedia because people argue over it? Here's an idea: how about we remove the genre box from all television, movie and video game articles too? No wait, we wouldn't do that because it's stupid. The only reason this seems to have gone through is because a handful of editors got tired of edit warring and said "we're destroying this argument altogether, so shall it be".

How about trying to work towards a solution, like creating a list or some sort of guideline on what's an acceptable genre to put down? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we been trying to work towards a solution for a month? bob rulz (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not just simply have all genres in the infobox sourced? This isn't fucking rocket science.Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: restoring the genre field (by Rodhullandemu)

Due to the apparent consensus that is currently expressed, hopefully I've managed to restore the genre field to {{Infobox musical artist}} and {{Infobox album}} pro tem. This is on the basis that once Wesley has put forward his proposals, and all interested parties have had their say, this issue can be put to bed once and for all, at least in the foreseeable future. I suggest that previous discussions be archived once discussion on Wesley's proposals begins, if only to keep this page to a manageable length; individual issues within the old discussions can be linked if required. --Rodhullandemu 01:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus??? The Real Libs-speak politely 02:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The consensus has long been to keep the genres. A few editors have acted against consensus and removed them. After much heated discussion, we reverted to consensus, before a new consensus (what would've normally been needed to make such a drastic change) is formed. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

But where has this consensus been invented? On this talk page the support to re-instate them did not equal the support to remove them. And their were/are still many editors who never took part in any discussion on this page who are just deleting them regardless of what is said here? Outside of a few loud complaints from some genre-edit-warriors, and a few genuine attempts to discuss a realistic approach to describing musical style while still maintaining some encyclopedic integrity, there was no consensus to replace the useless field. My watchlist has had more trolls and pov vandal in the past 2 hours than it has had in the past 10 days combined. Was there supposed to be a positive outcome in there somewhere? The Real Libs-speak politely 02:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the consensu is that there wasn't a wide enough consensus to remove them in the first place. I dont think it makes that much difference in the short term, we should attract our attentions to new guideline proposals and discussion which will lead to improvements to alot of music articles rather than concern ourselves with what gets revert or not. --neon white talk 10:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you're not supposed to be some sort of crypt keeper for your watch list, overseeing and ultimately ensuring that energy is balanced and all is peaceful and one with the Wiki...Orane (talk) 03:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Your side acted against consensus, now we've simply reverted to the way it was before, undoing the damage. A consensus needn't have been formed in this discussion bring it back. Consensus is needed to make the initial change, which never happened. Therefore, bringing back the genres reflects the interests of the Wikipedia community. --Pwnage8 (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw no consensus. Arguments on both sides were not resolved. Instead, it now appears to be an edit dispute over the infobox itself among administrators. - Steve3849 ^talk 04:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC) PS - uncannily highlighted by the heading of this sub-section.

Well, it's pro tem, so we can still continue to discuss it. Orane (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, somebody needs to mass-revert the genre removal edits by users such Realist2 and The Real Libs dejaphoenix (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's certainly nice of him.[1] He should get a barnstar for that! --Pwnage8 (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that administrator "Rodhull" both removed and returned the field. Obviously not an administrator dispute. Thus the above strike through. BTW, the rush to return text to the genre fields on a "mass-revert" should be done accompanied by a read through of each unfamiliar article to make sure they were accurate. Otherwise your merely returning articles to their possibly inferior state. Removing the info was an encyclopedically safe activity. Returing info is adding something potentially wrong. - Steve3849 ^talk 17:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

At long last, my response to the debate (by A Knight Who Says Ni)

This Wikiproject cabal
Made changes that some say did smell
At last, the stuffed shirts
Triumphed with reverts
And it must be a cold day in Hell

--A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, snarkiness is just going to get you into trouble. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

May I point out that this bit of verse has one snarky remark directed to each side? It was supposed to indicate my neutrality. Jokes are less funny when you have to explain them. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Which side is the "cabal"? - Steve3849 ^talk 17:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The genre shouldn't have been reinstated until Wesley's proposal had been discussed. Now things are back at square one and Wesley's idea can slip quietly into the night, with no change whatsoever to guidelines. — Realist² 12:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

So, are we accepting genre boxes again now or not?

For the sake of any consensus needed, my take on it is that removal of the genre section was the wrong move. Once it was done I went with it, and it certainly did lessen disputes, but it also made things less clear. A band's genre may not be something totally objective and easy to determine, but it is an integral part of a band's identity.

I've said my piece, and I'll happily go along with whatever is decided in the end. But can we at least have some clarity on it? I.E. no one making definite changes until things have been sorted out and the matter has been closed? Right now I for one am just confused as to what consensus really is, and I'd imagine a lot of others are too. Prophaniti (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about being cautious about changes, especially "mass-reverts". Discussion was not over, only paused while waiting for Wesley's proposal. Considering the amount of discussion that we have had -- no careful consensus has been reached. There are very specific and valid views on both sides of the debate, but no deliberate attempt to reach a new consensus has been made. Also, I will restate that there was initially a brief nearly unanimous consensus. As moonriddengirl has stated the initial discussion was "unfortunately" only posted here where you are now reading, a page very few of us were interested in until the change was made. A positive outcome aside from this exhaustive and seeming irreconcilable debate about a genre field is that many more people are now intersted in WikiProject Music. If more of us were reading here prior perhaps the original consensus would have reflected more of our ideas. - Steve3849 ^talk 00:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so. I was asked to come here initially for an opinion on a debate that had been going on for about ten days; I assumed (perhaps optimistically) that all interested parties had either been made aware of the discussion, or weren't that bothered about the outcome. So I made my proposal, again assuming that all interested parties were aware of the discussion. After a few days, I was asked to assess consensus, and on the above basis, I did so. To appoint an Admin or delete a debated article normally takes five days. Applying that principle, I regarded a consensus as having been achieved and deleted the genre field according to that consensus. Since then, not only have I seen editors otherwise rarely seen on policy talk pages expressing their opinions, but it also has to be said that in the days when the genre field was absent from the infoboxes, I didn't see edit-warring transfer to the body of articles. What I have seen, however, since I reinstated the genre field yesterday, is a spate of editors adding unsourced genres to the infoboxes, BECAUSE THEY CAN. I have a relatively light watchlist of only about 2500 articles, most of which are related to popular music, but no way can I keep up with that. Meanwhile, we should await Wesley's proposals, because my view is that the ensuing discussion should put this debate to bed for a lengthy period. My one regret is that there is little concept of estoppel or res judicata here, so that it is possible that a consensus is reached and that we are faced with the same debate again and again. Let's see where we go next. --Rodhullandemu 00:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to have some bot auto-add a comment line into the articles that would say something like "DO NOT ADD GENRES UNLESS YOU HAVE A SOURCE". It wouldn't curb all of the "vandalism" but it would probably help. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

An absolutely worthy idea; but my experience is that some editors not only add unsourced genres, but also remove the in-text advice. It's impossible to tell how many editors actually try to add their pet genres and decide not to do so because of such notes, because that just ain't visible. That's not an issue solely with music-related articles; it's generic. I've thought for a while that across WP in general it should be possible to apply varying protection levels to different sections of articles such that, for example, if the lead was stable, it could be protected at least against vandalism. That in itself presents several major technical database difficulties. There is an open proposal for "stable revisions" but that does not seem to have been fully implemented as yet. So we are stuck with being vigilant. --Rodhullandemu 01:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think something like this (Norse Am Legend's suggestion) will ultimately be necessary. - Steve3849 ^talk 01:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That begs the whole question of reliability and verifiability, both of which are core policies here. Our problem is that we have editors who add their own personal ideas of genre without regard to either policy, guideline, or consensus. Further, resources to educate such editors are in short supply; even if we point them at these things, that does not necessarily seem to stem the flow of personal preference. Sure, warnings, advice, and suchlike, are tools, but weak tools; because if "Kid A" is persuaded to follow policy with respect to editing articles about his favourite band today, tomorrow, "Kid B" will come along and the cycle has to be repeated. Screaming caps in warnings are an inappropriately targetted; they only apply to editors who think about what they are doing, and understand the nature of an encyclopedia and all that goes with it. The rest will pursue their agendas, come what may. Between these extremes, although we may have hidden editor's notes, there is nothing at all that is binding about these. Although notes may mitigate, and we cannot know how useful they are, they act only as suggestions. --Rodhullandemu 02:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So editors are to wait until WesleyDodds comes up with a proposal for genre guidelines? But right now WesleyDodds is currently engaged in several genre edit wars on a number of different articles? Edits here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here follow no stated guidelines they only server to revert the articles in question to his personal pov version. WesleyDodds asks another user here to assist him in edit warring to try and maintain certain articles to a state matching his preference. What part of the new guidelines will include justifying behaviour such as this? 217.45.165.189 (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Well hot doggy! I don't see edit-warring. I see undisputed reversions. I don't see you, or the editors he reverted, complaining in the slightest. I see no attempt to discuss on the talk pages of the relevant articles. I further suggest that you actually put up or shut up. You posted 14 diffs, and there is nothing to complain about in any of them. 14 times nothing is still nothing. --Rodhullandemu 02:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Rod, please run for WP:RfB soon. — Realist² 02:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I had thought of that, but being basically a vandal-fighter doesn't make you many friends. And there isn't that much I could do, or would want to do, as a 'Crat that I can't do now. so not just yet, I think, but thanks. --Rodhullandemu 02:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the genre warriors are back on my watchlist, looks like Wesley is having some troubles too. :-( — Realist² 02:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish to issue a complaint. I made a valid edit to the Stone Temple Pilots article to remove an incorrect genre that had been added in earlier trolling of the article. A user named Wikiscribe reverted my edit despite it having a clear edit summary and then issued a warning to me as if I had done some sort of vandalism to the article. That is an edit warrior attempting to hide behind the guise of reverting vandalism when clearly that is not what my edit was nor have any of the few edits I have actually made here been remotely close to vandalism. 165.228.238.27 (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You added original research to the article, which is forbidden. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)This is not the complaints department. 1. Talk to Wikiscribe and ask why 2. If futher input is required, take it to Talk:Stone Temple Pilots for further input; 3. If that fails, look at options for Dispute Resolution. Get back to me if none of the above work, and I'll tell you where to go. --Rodhullandemu 02:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note and links. As the the previous statement. I did not add anything? I removed text that was not supported by any given sources nor any reliable sources that I could find online or in any books relevant to the topic that I had access to. It was a correct edit with a clear edit summary. 165.228.238.27 (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

...and no soucres. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the problem of genre wars: I don't think a warning in the infobox will curb things any. Such warnings usually just get ignored. The solution is, of course, to only use properly sourced genres. However, most of the genre edits are usually IP addresses, presumably folks coming onto wikipedia, looking up their favourite/most hated bands, seeing genres they disagree with, and changing them to what they think is appropriate. In my experience what would actually help end genre wars is changing wikipedia so only registered users can edit it, but there you go. That, unfortunately, isn't going to happen.

One question on this kind of issue: is policy to go with source consensus, or all sources? In other words, is a single RS enough to add a genre for a band, if no other sources agree with it, even if they don't outright disagree either? This is something I've been uncertain about for a while now. Prophaniti (talk) 08:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A consideration to due balance of sources will sometimes will effect the solution, if not the majority of the cases. Re only one source stating a genre, my personal take would be to look very critically at level of reliability (OK so we won't likely be looking at top-notch authoritive as Groves, but the nearer to them the better) and the words being used to describe the genre, is this really in balance bearing in mind that NPOV (undue) clearly states "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all".--Alf ^melmac 08:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I had highly suspected those were edits in violation of WP:POINT, given they were anonymous edits from a number of newly active IPs with remarkably similiar edit summaries and an odd familiarity with the infobox template guideline. Also, note that the talk page message here is the IP's only edit. What the hell? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

APNIC resolves 165.228.238.27 to being in range 165.228.0.0 - 165.228.255.255, netname: TELSTRAINTERNET14-AU, Telstra Internet, Locked Bag 5744, Canberra, ACT 2601, AU. Does that help any?--Alf ^melmac 11:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not much, but thanks; someone has already brought up these odd edits to an admin. By the way, guidelines might be done Monday night. I've been planning them out in my head, but from what I've got so far they're going to be pretty long. I'm thinking of ways to make them more concise. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been *skimming this debate for the past month or so... does this even address the often contested articles "List of /genre/ bands"? Dan, the CowMan (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, this is specifically about the genre field in the infoboxes for musician, album and possibly song. There are however many lists: Lists of musicians. - Steve3849 ^talk 08:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Any movement on this yet? --neon white talk 11:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone like to write an essay, be it humors, on the condition of the Genre warrior/genre editing? I was going to write it in my user space but I don't think I have the wit. — Realist² 02:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Realist2/Genre Warrior. Please help. — Realist² 02:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

God, I have forty years experience of this from mods -v- rockers in the 1960s to emo -v- shoe-gazers now; it's largely a barren, sterile, pointless, futile, unnecessary, worthless, irrelevant, unproductive, unprofitable debate unless you are writing for a tabloid press. Unless you can find someone who is prepared to pay me to do it; in which case, I'll gladly recycle, with appropriate changes, stuff I wrote over 30 years ago. --Rodhullandemu 02:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've taken the optional choice to remove the genre field all together on Thriller (album) which I got to WP:FA. The genres are clearly visible in the lead as duplicated from the relevant section of text. There is no need for this genre warrior behavior and I'm still waiting for further info on new guidelines. — Realist² 12:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)