Template talk:Infobox music genre/Archive 1

Archive 1

optionality

Needs to be made so that fields are optional, and not shown if they're not entered.--Urthogie 15:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Did that already with hiddenstructure. how/where does it not work? Circeus 16:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

On rapcore.--Urthogie 21:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Solution is that all variables MUST be listed,with those unused left empty (also makes the job easier if said variables need to be filled later.)Circeus 21:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks!--Urthogie 21:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Genre

What exactly are the differences between "derivative genres", "subgenres" and "fusion genres"? --Circeus 04:05, January 2 2006

subgenres are styles of a genre that have become notable enough to have been called a new name in their specific scenes, i.e., heavy metal music > thrash metal, black metal, death metal, etc

derivative genres are styles of music that are related to the parent genre musicologically but are considered seperate or developed enough to be considered parent genres, i.e., rock music > heavy metal music, punk rock, etc

fusion genres are subgenres that fuse the parent genre with other distinct genres/subgenres, i.e., industrial music > industrial metal, industrial rock --MilkMiruku 20:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

move 'Derivative forms:' down a bit?

might it be an idea to move the 'Derivative forms:' section down to below 'Fusion genres'? i feel subgenres and fusion genres are more notable in relation to a genre article than derivative forms. also, would a better wording not be "Derivative styles:"? --MilkMiruku 20:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding a Tnavbar?

Could we add a view/talk/edit option to the infobox?

{{center|{{Tnavbar|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}

So that we have this on each one:

{{Tnavbar|{{PAGENAME}}}}

I just think it would make things a lot easier, and it makes it much easier than just editing every template that uses the format individually. 66.229.182.113 10:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

Image syntax should be added. It doesn't need to be included in every article, but can be helpful in some where an artist's image is as relevant to the genre as the music. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Polish interwiki

{{editprotected}} Can someone add Polish interwiki to the template? [[pl:Szablon:Gatunek muzyki infobox]] Thanks. Hołek ҉ 12:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider adding interwikis on the Polish page as well? SalaSkan 18:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I just forgot about that. ;) Consider it done. Hołek ҉ 11:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done ck lostsword•T•C 19:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics or Style Elements

I suggest adding a field for one of these:

Characteristics =

Musical Features =

Elements of Style =

This could be used to identify specific features of a music genre, such as in jazz or blues the use of swingtime, or in different types of dance music, examples of the common BPM for different, etc... The field should be general enough for any style elements to be included. Probably best if the text shows up small, since it might include multiple elements in a list. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you want? How should the change be coded? You may want to ask at Wikipedia:Requested templates to find someone to write and test the code for this change. --ais523 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's a good idea. I'll come up with something more defined and then re-post here with the suggested change in detail. For now I'm removing the editprotected tag. When I have the specifics ready, I'll re-post here and add the tag again. Thanks for the reply. --Parzival418 _Hello 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Recommended colors, if any

Do the colors (color and bgcolor elements) signify anything? I don't see any rules anywhere, and I'm trying to figure out a recent undiscussed change.[1] / edg ☺ ★ 15:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... doesn't look like there are any rules or guidelines for the colours. People have probably just been using whatever might look appropiate for the genre. Should we make a list of genres that use this infobox and the colours currently used by each? Yep, sounds like a good start to organizing something; I'll check them out. --Geniac 19:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours. --Geniac 19:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Parameters

{{editprotected}}

On House music you notice how using {{{cultural_origins}}} instead of {{{cultural_origins|}}} has resulted in a meaningless parameter to be shown. This should be fixed. (Also, it would be a good idea to change {{{stylistic_origins}}} to {{{stylistic_origins|}}}) huji—TALK 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Code added to display parts of table optionally, but still display parameter names in template space for documentation. Gimmetrow 03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible Creators

I propose 'Possible Creators' section, as every single genre has certain people at its roots and it is useful to find them in infobox -- Werwerwer11 (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be an original research field. Wikipedia already has too much OR already. Peter Fleet (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed redesign...

Extended content

State capital State largest city State capital and largest city Federal capital 2017 rank City State 2017 estimate 2010 Census Change 2016 land area 2016 population density Location 1 New York New York 8,622,698 8,175,133 +5.47% 301.5 sq mi 780.9 km2 28,317/sq mi 10,933/km2 40.6635°N 73.9387°W / 40.6635; -73.9387 (1 New York City) 2 Los Angeles California 3,999,759 3,792,621 +5.46% 468.7 sq mi 1,213.9 km2 8,484/sq mi 3,276/km2 34.0194°N 118.4108°W / 34.0194; -118.4108 (2 Los Angeles) 3 Chicago Illinois 2,716,450 2,695,598 +0.77% 227.3 sq mi 588.7 km2 11,900/sq mi 4,600/km2 41.8376°N 87.6818°W / 41.8376; -87.6818 (3 Chicago) 4 Houston Texas 2,312,717 2,100,263 +10.12% 637.5 sq mi 1,651.1 km2 3,613/sq mi 1,395/km2 29.7866°N 95.3909°W / 29.7866; -95.3909 (4 Houston) 5 Phoenix Arizona 1,626,078 1,445,632 +12.48% 517.6 sq mi 1,340.6 km2 3,120/sq mi 1,200/km2 33.5722°N 112.0901°W / 33.5722; -112.0901 (6 Phoenix) 6 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1,580,863 1,526,006 +3.59% 134.2 sq mi 347.6 km2 11,683/sq mi 4,511/km2 40.0094°N 75.1333°W / 40.0094; -75.1333 (5 Philadelphia) 7 San Antonio Texas 1,511,946 1,327,407 +13.90% 461.0 sq mi 1,194.0 km2 3,238/sq mi 1,250/km2 29.4724°N 98.5251°W / 29.4724; -98.5251 (7 San Antonio) 8 San Diego California 1,419,516 1,307,402 +8.58% 325.2 sq mi 842.3 km2 4,325/sq mi 1,670/km2 32.8153°N 117.1350°W / 32.8153; -117.1350 (8 San Diego) 9 Dallas Texas 1,341,075 1,197,816 +11.96% 340.9 sq mi 882.9 km2 3,866/sq mi 1,493/km2 32.7933°N 96.7665°W / 32.7933; -96.7665 (9 Dallas) 10 San Jose California 1,035,317 945,942 +9.45% 177.5 sq mi 459.7 km2 5,777/sq mi 2,231/km2 37.2967°N 121.8189°W / 37.2967; -121.8189 (10 San Jose) 11 Austin Texas 950,715 790,390 +20.28% 312.7 sq mi 809.9 km2 3,031/sq mi 1,170/km2 30.3039°N 97.7544°W / 30.3039; -97.7544 (11 Austin) 12 Jacksonville Florida 892,062 821,784 +8.55% 747.4 sq mi 1,935.8 km2 1,178/sq mi 455/km2 30.3369°N 81.6616°W / 30.3369; -81.6616 (12 Jacksonville) 13 San Francisco California 884,363 805,235 +9.83% 46.9 sq mi 121.5 km2 18,569/sq mi 7,170/km2 37.7272°N 123.0322°W / 37.7272; -123.0322 (13 San Francisco) 14 Columbus Ohio 879,170 787,033 +11.71% 218.5 sq mi 565.9 km2 3,936/sq mi 1,520/km2 39.9852°N 82.9848°W / 39.9852; -82.9848 (15 Columbus) 15 Fort Worth Texas 874,168 741,206 +17.94% 342.9 sq mi 888.1 km2 2,491/sq mi 962/km2 32.7815°N 97.3467°W / 32.7815; -97.3467 (16 Fort Worth) 16 Indianapolis Indiana 863,002 820,445 +5.19% 361.5 sq mi 936.3 km2 2,366/sq mi 914/km2 39.7767°N 86.1459°W / 39.7767; -86.1459 (14 Indianapolis) 17 Charlotte North Carolina 859,035 731,424 +17.45% 305.4 sq mi 791.0 km2 2,757/sq mi 1,064/km2 35.2078°N 80.8310°W / 35.2078; -80.8310 (17 Charlotte) 18 Seattle Washington 724,745 608,660 +19.07% 83.8 sq mi 217.0 km2 8,405/sq mi 3,245/km2 47.6205°N 122.3509°W / 47.6205; -122.3509 (20 Seattle) 19 Denver Colorado 704,621 600,158 +17.41% 153.3 sq mi 397.0 km2 4,521/sq mi 1,746/km2 39.7619°N 104.8811°W / 39.7619; -104.8811 (Denver) 20 Washington District of Columbia 693,972 601,723 +15.33% 61.1 sq mi 158.2 km2 11,148/sq mi 4,304/km2 38.9041°N 77.0172°W / 38.9041; -77.0172 (Washington, D.C.) 21 Boston Massachusetts 685,094 617,594 +10.93% 48.3 sq mi 125.1 km2 13,938/sq mi 5,381/km2 42.3320°N 71.0202°W / 42.3320; -71.0202 (Boston) 22 El Paso Texas 683,577 649,121 +5.31% 256.8 sq mi 665.1 km2 2,660/sq mi 1,030/km2 31.8484°N 106.4270°W / 31.8484; -106.4270 (19 El Paso) 23 Detroit Michigan 673,104 713,777 −5.70% 138.8 sq mi 359.5 km2 4,847/sq mi 1,871/km2 42.3830°N 83.1022°W / 42.3830; -83.1022 (18 Detroit) 24 Nashville Tennessee 667,560 601,222 +11.03% 475.9 sq mi 1,232.6 km2 1,388/sq mi 536/km2 36.1718°N 86.7850°W / 36.1718; -86.7850 (Nashville) 25 Memphis Tennessee 652,236 646,889 +0.83% 317.4 sq mi 822.1 km2 2,056/sq mi 794/km2 35.1028°N 89.9774°W / 35.1028; -89.9774 (Memphis) 26 Portland Oregon 647,805 583,776 +10.97% 133.5 sq mi 345.8 km2 4,793/sq mi 1,851/km2 45.5370°N 122.6500°W / 45.5370; -122.6500 (Portland) 27 Oklahoma City Oklahoma 643,648 579,999 +10.97% 606.3 sq mi 1,570.3 km2 1,053/sq mi 407/km2 35.4671°N 97.5137°W / 35.4671; -97.5137 (Oklahoma City) 28 Las Vegas Nevada 641,676 583,756 +9.92% 134.4 sq mi 348.1 km2 4,709/sq mi 1,818/km2 36.2292°N 115.2601°W / 36.2292; -115.2601 (Las Vegas) 29 Louisville Kentucky 621,349 597,337 +4.02% 263.5 sq mi 682.5 km2 2,339/sq mi 903/km2 38.1654°N 85.6474°W / 38.1654; -85.6474 (Louisville) 30 Baltimore Maryland 611,648 620,961 −1.50% 80.9 sq mi 209.5 km2 7,598/sq mi 2,934/km2 39.3000°N 76.6105°W / 39.3000; -76.6105 (Baltimore) 31 Milwaukee Wisconsin 595,351 594,833 +0.09% 96.2 sq mi 249.2 km2 6,186/sq mi 2,388/km2 43.0633°N 87.9667°W / 43.0633; -87.9667 (Milwaukee) 32 Albuquerque New Mexico 558,545 545,852 +2.33% 188.2 sq mi 487.4 km2 2,972/sq mi 1,147/km2 35.1056°N 106.6474°W / 35.1056; -106.6474 (Albuquerque) 33 Tucson Arizona 535,677 520,116 +2.99% 230.8 sq mi 597.8 km2 2,299/sq mi 888/km2 32.1531°N 110.8706°W / 32.1531; -110.8706 (Tucson) 34 Fresno California 527,438 494,665 +6.63% 114.4 sq mi 296.3 km2 4,563/sq mi 1,762/km2 36.7836°N 119.7934°W / 36.7836; -119.7934 (Fresno) 35 Sacramento California 501,901 466,488 +7.59% 97.9 sq mi 253.6 km2 5,059/sq mi 1,953/km2 38.5666°N 121.4686°W / 38.5666; -121.4686 (Sacramento) 36 Mesa Arizona 496,401 439,041 +13.06% 137.9 sq mi 357.2 km2 3,514/sq mi 1,357/km2 33.4019°N 111.7174°W / 33.4019; -111.7174 (Mesa) 37 Kansas City Missouri 488,943 459,787 +6.34% 315.0 sq mi 815.8 km2 1,528/sq mi 590/km2 39.1251°N 94.5510°W / 39.1251; -94.5510 (Kansas City, MO) 38 Atlanta Georgia 486,290 420,003 +15.78% 133.5 sq mi 345.8 km2 3,539/sq mi 1,366/km2 33.7629°N 84.4227°W / 33.7629; -84.4227 (Atlanta) 39 Long Beach California 469,450 462,257 +1.56% 50.3 sq mi 130.3 km2 9,347/sq mi 3,609/km2 33.8092°N 118.1553°W / 33.8092; -118.1553 (Long Beach) 40 Omaha Nebraska 466,893 408,958 +14.17% 133.2 sq mi 345.0 km2 3,356/sq mi 1,296/km2 41.2644°N 96.0451°W / 41.2644; -96.0451 (Omaha) 41 Raleigh North Carolina 464,758 403,892 +15.07% 145.1 sq mi 375.8 km2 3,163/sq mi 1,221/km2 35.8306°N 78.6418°W / 35.8306; -78.6418 (Raleigh) 42 Colorado Springs Colorado 464,474 416,427 +11.54% 195.6 sq mi 506.6 km2 2,378/sq mi 918/km2 38.8673°N 104.7607°W / 38.8673; -104.7607 (Colorado Springs) 43 Miami Florida 463,347 399,457 +15.99% 36.0 sq mi 93.2 km2 12,599/sq mi 4,865/km2 25.7752°N 80.2086°W / 25.7752; -80.2086 (Miami) 44 Virginia Beach Virginia 450,435 437,994 +2.84% 244.7 sq mi 633.8 km2 1,850/sq mi 710/km2 36.7800°N 76.0252°W / 36.7800; -76.0252 (Virginia Beach) 45 Oakland California 425,195 390,724 +8.82% 55.9 sq mi 144.8 km2 7,514/sq mi 2,901/km2 37.7698°N 122.2257°W / 37.7698; -122.2257 (Oakland) 46 Minneapolis Minnesota 422,331 382,578 +10.39% 54.0 sq mi 139.9 km2 7,660/sq mi 2,960/km2 44.9633°N 93.2683°W / 44.9633; -93.2683 (Minneapolis) 47 Tulsa Oklahoma 401,800 391,906 +2.52% 196.8 sq mi 509.7 km2 2,048/sq mi 791/km2 36.1279°N 95.9023°W / 36.1279; -95.9023 (Tulsa) 48 Arlington Texas 396,394 365,438 +8.47% 95.8 sq mi 248.1 km2 4,100/sq mi 1,600/km2 32.7007°N 97.1247°W / 32.7007; -97.1247 (Arlington) 49 New Orleans Louisiana 393,292 343,829 +14.39% 169.4 sq mi 438.7 km2 2,311/sq mi 892/km2 30.0534°N 89.9345°W / 30.0534; -89.9345 (New Orleans) 50 Wichita Kansas 390,591 382,368 +2.15% 160.4 sq mi 415.4 km2 2,431/sq mi 939/km2 37.6907°N 97.3459°W / 37.6907; -97.3459 (Wichita) 51 Cleveland Ohio 385,525 396,815 −2.85% 77.7 sq mi 201.2 km2 4,965/sq mi 1,917/km2 41.4785°N 81.6794°W / 41.4785; -81.6794 (Cleveland) 52 Tampa Florida 385,430 335,709 +14.81% 113.4 sq mi 293.7 km2 3,326/sq mi 1,284/km2 27.9701°N 82.4797°W / 27.9701; -82.4797 (Tampa) 53 Bakersfield California 380,874 347,483 +9.61% 148.8 sq mi 385.4 km2 2,529/sq mi 976/km2 35.3212°N 119.0183°W / 35.3212; -119.0183 (Bakersfield) 54 Aurora Colorado 366,623 325,078 +12.78% 153.5 sq mi 397.6 km2 2,356/sq mi 910/km2 39.6880°N 104.6897°W / 39.6880; -104.6897 (Aurora) 55 Anaheim California 352,497 336,265 +4.83% 50.0 sq mi 129.5 km2 7,021/sq mi 2,711/km2 33.8555°N 117.7601°W / 33.8555; -117.7601 (Anaheim) 56 Honolulu Hawaii 350,395 337,256 +3.90% 60.5 sq mi 156.7 km2 5,815/sq mi 2,245/km2 21.3243°N 157.8476°W / 21.3243; -157.8476 (Honolulu) 57 Santa Ana California 334,136 324,528 +2.96% 27.1 sq mi 70.2 km2 12,333/sq mi 4,762/km2 33.7363°N 117.8830°W / 33.7363; -117.8830 (Santa Ana) 58 Riverside California 327,728 303,871 +7.85% 81.2 sq mi 210.3 km2 3,999/sq mi 1,544/km2 33.9381°N 117.3932°W / 33.9381; -117.3932 (Riverside) 59 Corpus Christi Texas 325,605 305,215 +6.68% 174.6 sq mi 452.2 km2 1,866/sq mi 720/km2 27.7543°N 97.1734°W / 27.7543; -97.1734 (Corpus Christi) 60 Lexington Kentucky 321,959 295,803 +8.84% 283.6 sq mi 734.5 km2 1,123/sq mi 434/km2 38.0407°N 84.4583°W / 38.0407; -84.4583 (Lexington) 61 Stockton California 310,496 291,707 +6.44% 61.7 sq mi 159.8 km2 4,977/sq mi 1,922/km2 37.9763°N 121.3133°W / 37.9763; -121.3133 (Stockton) 62 St. Louis Missouri 308,626 319,294 −3.34% 62.0 sq mi 160.6 km2 5,023/sq mi 1,939/km2 38.6357°N 90.2446°W / 38.6357; -90.2446 (St. Louis) 63 Saint Paul Minnesota 306,621 285,068 +7.56% 52.0 sq mi 134.7 km2 5,815/sq mi 2,245/km2 44.9489°N 93.1041°W / 44.9489; -93.1041 (Saint Paul) 64 Henderson Nevada 302,539 257,729 +17.39% 104.7 sq mi 271.2 km2 2,798/sq mi 1,080/km2 36.0097°N 115.0357°W / 36.0097; -115.0357 (Henderson) 65 Pittsburgh Pennsylvania 302,407 305,704 −1.08% 55.4 sq mi 143.5 km2 5,481/sq mi 2,116/km2 40.4398°N 79.9766°W / 40.4398; -79.9766 (Pittsburgh) 66 Cincinnati Ohio 301,301 296,943 +1.47% 77.4 sq mi 200.5 km2 3,860/sq mi 1,490/km2 39.1402°N 84.5058°W / 39.1402; -84.5058 (Cincinnati) 67 Anchorage Alaska 294,356 291,826 +0.87% 1,706.6 sq mi 4,420.1 km2 175/sq mi 68/km2 61.1743°N 149.2843°W / 61.1743; -149.2843 (Anchorage) 68 Greensboro North Carolina 290,222 269,666 +7.62% 128.3 sq mi 332.3 km2 2,237/sq mi 864/km2 36.0951°N 79.8270°W / 36.0951; -79.8270 (Greensboro) 69 Plano Texas 286,143 259,841 +10.12% 71.7 sq mi 185.7 km2 3,990/sq mi 1,540/km2 33.0508°N 96.7479°W / 33.0508; -96.7479 (Plano) 70 Newark New Jersey 285,154 277,140 +2.89% 24.1 sq mi 62.4 km2 11,691/sq mi 4,514/km2 40.7242°N 74.1726°W / 40.7242; -74.1726 (Newark) 71 Lincoln Nebraska 284,736 258,379 +10.20% 92.1 sq mi 238.5 km2 3,044/sq mi 1,175/km2 40.8105°N 96.6803°W / 40.8105; -96.6803 (Lincoln) 72 Orlando Florida 280,257 238,300 +17.61% 105.2 sq mi 272.5 km2 2,635/sq mi 1,017/km2 28.4166°N 81.2736°W / 28.4166; -81.2736 (Orlando) 73 Irvine California 277,453 212,375 +30.64% 65.6 sq mi 169.9 km2 4,057/sq mi 1,566/km2 33.6784°N 117.7713°W / 33.6784; -117.7713 (Irvine) 74 Toledo Ohio 276,491 287,208 −3.73% 80.7 sq mi 209.0 km2 3,451/sq mi 1,332/km2 41.6641°N 83.5819°W / 41.6641; -83.5819 (Toledo) 75 Jersey City New Jersey 270,753 247,597 +9.35% 14.8 sq mi 38.3 km2 17,848/sq mi 6,891/km2 40.7114°N 74.0648°W / 40.7114; -74.0648 (Jersey City) 76 Chula Vista California 270,471 243,916 +10.89% 49.6 sq mi 128.5 km2 5,387/sq mi 2,080/km2 32.6277°N 117.0152°W / 32.6277; -117.0152 (Chula Vista) 77 Durham North Carolina 267,743 228,330 +17.26% 109.8 sq mi 284.4 km2 2,395/sq mi 925/km2 35.9811°N 78.9029°W / 35.9811; -78.9029 (Durham) 78 Fort Wayne Indiana 265,904 253,691 +4.81% 110.6 sq mi 286.5 km2 2,391/sq mi 923/km2 41.0882°N 85.1439°W / 41.0882; -85.1439 (Fort Wayne) 79 St. Petersburg Florida 263,255 244,769 +7.55% 61.8 sq mi 160.1 km2 4,223/sq mi 1,631/km2 27.7620°N 82.6441°W / 27.7620; -82.6441 (St. Petersburg) 80 Laredo Texas 260,654 236,091 +10.40% 101.1 sq mi 261.8 km2 2,544/sq mi 982/km2 27.5604°N 99.4892°W / 27.5604; -99.4892 (Laredo) 81 Buffalo New York 258,612 261,310 −1.03% 40.4 sq mi 104.6 km2 6,359/sq mi 2,455/km2 42.8925°N 78.8597°W / 42.8925; -78.8597 (Buffalo) 82 Madison Wisconsin 255,214 233,209 +9.44% 77.0 sq mi 199.4 km2 3,280/sq mi 1,270/km2 43.0878°N 89.4299°W / 43.0878; -89.4299 (Madison) 83 Lubbock Texas 253,888 229,573 +10.59% 124.6 sq mi 322.7 km2 2,027/sq mi 783/km2 33.5656°N 101.8867°W / 33.5656; -101.8867 (Lubbock) 84 Chandler Arizona 253,458 236,123 +7.34% 64.9 sq mi 168.1 km2 3,813/sq mi 1,472/km2 33.2829°N 111.8549°W / 33.2829; -111.8549 (Chandler) 85 Scottsdale Arizona 249,950 217,385 +14.98% 183.9 sq mi 476.3 km2 1,341/sq mi 518/km2 33.6843°N 111.8611°W / 33.6843; -111.8611 (Scottsdale) 86 Reno Nevada 248,853 225,221 +10.49% 107.3 sq mi 277.9 km2 2,286/sq mi 883/km2 39.5491°N 119.8499°W / 39.5491; -119.8499 (Reno) 87 Glendale Arizona 246,709 226,721 +8.82% 59.1 sq mi 153.1 km2 4,161/sq mi 1,607/km2 33.5331°N 112.1899°W / 33.5331; -112.1899 (Glendale) 88 Norfolk Virginia 244,703 242,803 +0.78% 53.3 sq mi 138.0 km2 4,599/sq mi 1,776/km2 36.9230°N 76.2446°W / 36.9230; -76.2446 (Norfolk) 89 Winston–Salem North Carolina 244,605 229,617 +6.53% 132.5 sq mi 343.2 km2 1,828/sq mi 706/km2 36.1027°N 80.2610°W / 36.1027; -80.2610 (Winston-Salem) 90 North Las Vegas Nevada 242,975 216,961 +11.99% 98.0 sq mi 253.8 km2 2,436/sq mi 941/km2 36.2857°N 115.0939°W / 36.2857; -115.0939 (North Las Vegas) 91 Gilbert Arizona 242,354 208,453 +16.26% 68.0 sq mi 176.1 km2 3,487/sq mi 1,346/km2 33.3103°N 111.7431°W / 33.3103; -111.7431 (Gilbert) 92 Chesapeake Virginia 240,397 222,209 +8.19% 338.5 sq mi 876.7 km2 703/sq mi 271/km2 36.6794°N 76.3018°W / 36.6794; -76.3018 (Chesapeake) 93 Irving Texas 240,373 216,290 +11.13% 67.0 sq mi 173.5 km2 3,557/sq mi 1,373/km2 32.8577°N 96.9700°W / 32.8577; -96.9700 (Irving) 94 Hialeah Florida 239,673 224,669 +6.68% 21.5 sq mi 55.7 km2 10,995/sq mi 4,245/km2 25.8699°N 80.3029°W / 25.8699; -80.3029 (Hialeah) 95 Garland Texas 238,002 226,876 +4.90% 57.0 sq mi 147.6 km2 4,122/sq mi 1,592/km2 32.9098°N 96.6303°W / 32.9098; -96.6303 (Garland) 96 Fremont California 234,962 214,089 +9.75% 77.5 sq mi 200.7 km2 3,008/sq mi 1,161/km2 37.4945°N 121.9412°W / 37.4945; -121.9412 (Fremont) 97 Richmond Virginia 227,032 204,214 +11.17% 59.8 sq mi 154.9 km2 3,732/sq mi 1,441/km2 37.5314°N 77.4760°W / 37.5314; -77.4760 (Richmond) 98 Boise Idaho 226,570 205,671 +10.16% 82.1 sq mi 212.6 km2 2,718/sq mi 1,049/km2 43.6002°N 116.2317°W / 43.6002; -116.2317 (Boise) 99 Baton Rouge Louisiana 225,374 229,493 −1.79% 85.9 sq mi 222.5 km2 2,651/sq mi 1,024/km2 30.4422°N 91.1309°W / 30.4422; -91.1309 (Baton Rouge) 100 Des Moines Iowa 217,521 203,433 +6.93% 88.9 sq mi 230.2 km2 2,424/sq mi 936/km2 41.5726°N 93.6102°W / 41.5726; -93.6102 (Des Moines) Rock music Stylistic origins Rock and roll Blues Cultural origins 1960s United Kingdom, United States Typical instruments Electric guitar, Bass guitar, Drums, keyboards Derivative forms Alternative rock – Heavy metal – Punk rock Subgenres Art rock – Christian rock – Classic rock – Desert rock – Detroit rock – Emo – Experimental rock – Garage rock – Girl group – Glam rock – Group Sounds – Grunge – Hard rock – Heartland rock – Instrumental rock -Indie rock – Jam band – Jangle pop – Krautrock – Power pop – Protopunk – Psychedelia – Pub rock (Australia) – Pub rock (UK) – Soft rock – Southern rock – Surf – Symphonic rock (complete list) Fusion genres Rap rock – Aboriginal rock – Afro-rock – Anatolian rock – Blues-rock – Boogaloo – Country rock – Flamenco-rock – Folk rock – Indo-rock – Punk rock – Jazz fusion – Madchester – Merseybeat – Progressive rock – Punta rock – Raga rock – Raï rock – Rockabilly – Rockoson – Samba-rock – Space rock – Stoner rock Regional scenes Argentina – Armenia – Australia – Austria – Belarus – Belgium – Bosnia and Herzegovina – Brazil – Cambodia – Canada – Chile – China – Cuba – Croatia – Denmark – Dominican Republic – Estonia – Finland – France – Greece – Germany – Hungary – Iceland – India – Indonesia – Ireland – Israel – Italy – Japan – Spanish-speaking world – Latvia – Lithuania – Malaysia – Mexico – Nepal – Netherlands – New Zealand – Norway – Peru – Philippines – Poland – Portugal – Russia – Serbia – Slovenia – South Africa – Spain – Sweden – Switzerland – Tatar – Thailand – Turkey – Ukraine – United Kingdom – United States – Uruguay – SFR Yugoslavia – Zambia Other topics Backbeat – Rock opera – Rock band – Performers – Hall of Fame – Social impact

See {{User:The Obento Musubi/Sandbox}} for the source code.

to be frank, i think it's a little bit information overkill. lots of this could go in a navbar template and/or the lead of the article. possibly a personal taste thing, but i like compact infoboxes that contain just the basics. --Kaini (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add any parameters... This is the exact same template, just redesigned a little. obentomusubi 02:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ Kaini, I like compactness and simplicity, and I don't like the inflated header banners. I also don't like the small text; there's just too much text to shrink it all & expect it not to annoy people. Also for some reason it doesn't show any of the "other topics", and it puts "view/edit" buttons at the bottom that really shouldn't be there. I also don't particularly like how this was implemented without any support in this discussion. You could've notified WikiProject Music about your proposal to draw more attention to the discussion & get more feedback. I think just going for it on the basis of WP:BOLD was a bad move. You're an old hand, OM, you know where to go to get more opinions & build consensus. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Per the various discussions I've had with The Obento Musubi, I've removed the various overrides to the template styling. The {{infobox}} defaults were chosen after discussion and are widely used across the project – there is no support for arbitrarily overriding the padding or other elements. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not good with this kind of technical stuff but whatever you did took away all of the colored topic banners within the infobox, so I reverted it. Is there a way to undo the offending overrides without turning this into just a standard infobox? The colored banners, etc. were installed to make this a topic-specific box (and are used widely in most other topic-specific infoboxes ie. albums, artists). And could you both discuss your proposed changes here, on the talk page, instead of wherever else you're having these "various discussions"? This template is used in hundreds of articles, so changes ought to be discussed. Heck, it says it's permanently protected yet it's not...I was able to revert it just now. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, oops. As much as I dislike this idea that WikiProjects should decorate their infoboxes with different pretty baubles to make them stand out, removing the colour stripes was an oversight. Replacement code is now in the sandbox for testing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 07:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ref to WikiProject Music genres

{{editprotected}} Can we please remove the reference to the defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres? Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I see no such reference in this template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's in the documentation Template:Infobox Music genre/doc, which is not protected. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Two fields

Why are there fields for "local scenes" and "regional scenes"? You only need one. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

less extreme makeover

So I've updated the sandbox to do less overriding of the default infobox styling while still keeping some of the stylistic quirks which keep this from being, in Illazilla's words, "a plain-jane" infobox. Comparison is at the new test cases page. If there are no complaints I'll request sync. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 12:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the rationale for going from regular text to small text? Most other infoboxes don't do that. If it's merely to reduce the final size of the box, then I think that purpose might be better accomplished by discussing if any of the fields should maybe be cut. I don't think small text just for the sake of size reduction is the best idea (keeping in mind that some readers have vision issues). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "most other infoboxes" do indeed do so (although one's mileage may vary depending on what part of Wikipedia one spends most time on), as it's the default for the {{infobox}} base class. The reason that particular font size was chosen is because 88% is the largest size which displays identically in both Firefox and Internet Explorer – any larger size means significant changes in the metrics between the two most common browsers. I'm keen to avoid accessibility issues with too-small text, but I feel that the {{infobox}} default is still acceptable here and has been well-tested. Reducing the final size of the box can easily be accomplished by removing some of the random embellishments such as the per-row borders, but I'd rather not shake the boat too much here for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 09:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. I'm thinking mainly of other music-related tinfoboxes such as Infobox Musical artist, Infobox Album, and Infobox Single. I use IE, and for me the text in each of those is the same size as the current one in this infobox, not smaller like the text in your new version. I like the bolded field names, though. That resembles the format in those other boxes. I think we should aim for consistency amongst music-related boxes. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There isn't currently consistency across the various music boxes anyway - {{infobox musical instrument}} uses the {{infobox}} defaults; {{infobox Musical artist}} uses font-size: 0.9em, which on Firefox displays at the smaller size; {{infobox Music genre}} uses 95%; {{infobox Album}} and {{infobox Single}} use 100%. If we're going to standardise, we should try to standardise on the same defaults used elsewhere on the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 08:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not advocating one over the other necessarily, though if I was to choose one I think I'd just go with the {{infobox}} defaults. I just think it might be worth bringing up at the Music project that these various infoboxes have inconsistent font sizes, and maybe we can aim for them all having the same. I think I'll post a note on the project talk page. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Update

The WikiProject posting Illazilla refers to above has gone unanswered (and is now archived). As such, I'm planning on rolling out the proposed changes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 12:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sync with sandbox

{{editprotected}} While we've been having this discussion, {{infobox single}} and {{infobox album}} have moved to use the same basic styling (in particular font metrics) as the proposed sandbox here. Requesting sync to catch up with them, as this currently isn't in dispute. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 12:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Colors

Could we please pick a color for this infobox and make it standard, rather than allowing editors to set the colors to whatever they please? Most other topic-specific infoboxes have a set colors in order to standardize the look of those topic article across Wikipedia. Template:Infobox Musical artist, for example, has set colors with specific meanings. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres/Colours seems to give no particular meanings to the colors (and the page is deprecated anyway). I've been having a problem at the emo article with an editor who thinks it should be pink or purple or whatever other random color he feels like at the moment, when it seems like rock genres ought to be crimson (and nearly every rock genre article I've seen uses crimson). Could we just pick a single color for genre infoboxes and lock it in, removing the option for editors to set it? Alternatively, we could create a list of 6 or so overarching genres (Classical, Rock, Jazz, Hip-Hop, Electronic, Country, etc.) and set corresponding colors for those (similar to how Template:Infobox Album#Type works). In any case, the current usage leads to inconsistency across music articles and doesn't look good at all. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather the colour was just removed entirely. It's never going to be anything other than arbitrary, so there's little reason to distract readers with large bands of it in the infobox. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 12:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add my opinion to the discussion. I've been editing a few articles about different types of music and have noticed that this infobox color is in mess in those articles. I can provide examples: snap music is a subgenre of hip hop music, that is explicitly stated in the article with the citation. However the color of infobox is white in the article, and the color of infobox in hip hop music article is dark-blue. Why? (1) Exactly the same situation is with funk music article and nu-funk (2), soul music and northern soul (3), soul music and brown-eyed soul (4), soul music and smooth soul (5), reggae music and dub music (6), hip hop music and baltimore club (7), hip hop music and hyphy (8), dance punk and nu rave (9), disco and space disco (10), disco and italo disco (11), disco and hi-nrg (12) and so on.

Another issue is fusion genres. As fusion genre article reveals (though poor article with bad to none sources) fusion genre is a combination of some genres of music, that could even be unrelated (like, R&B punk). So, what should the color of infobox in those articles be (red as in punk rock or dark-blue as in contemporary R&B)? In some cases, the color of infobox had caused small edit conflicts, like here: ("what should the colour of infobox in 'smooth jazz' article be like?"). Such situations, when users argue over infobox colours make damage to Wikipedia, as they drift attention away from the topic of article.

I'd like to make two possible solutions for the issue:

• to remove the parameter of colour from this infobox
• to forbid using this template in articles about sub-genres. This solution will also draw a brighter diffenre between various music genres and their sub-genres, as some editors don't seem to understand the difference (as far as I have been editing articles of such kind, an exact reference to if the type of music is a genre or a sub-genre of some other genre can easily be found in most cases. For all other cases, when it is unclear from sources whether the type of music is a genre or a sub-genre of some other genre both points of view can be presented, as in crunk music). -- Appletangerine un (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Style, again

So the music project has pretty much stabilised on using the {{infobox}} default styling over the last year or so. This template still uses weird bottom borders on all of its rows. I think it's time to get rid of them. Code is in the sandbox, comparison is on the test cases page. If there's no objection I'll request a sync. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 15:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Requesting sync with sandbox as this doesn't seem controversial any more. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 10:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Derivative forms

Can anyone clearly explain what that field is meant to be filled with and to make that explanation a standart rule. The term derivative form isn't, AFAIK, widely used if even it is used somewhere. So I want this to be explained. If it should be used for sub genres that "shifted" away from their parental genre a bit more than others, then it is useless, as no source would measure that imaginable "distance" and that field will only serve to start POV wars. If it should be used for the separate genres of music that evolved from an initial genre, then there are probably no cases to use, as all new genres to the moment are of fusional origin and have no single parental genre they had evolved from – in this case using this field will cause only POV wars once again, as one can hardly distinguish what genre was "basic" in formation of a new genre and what genres were only "influences". -- Appletangerine un (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Add an image

Simples. Add this below the headerstyle line:

| image       = {{{image|}}}
| caption     = {{{caption|}}}

Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 13:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit weary on this. Do we really want to capture something as vague as a genre in a single image ? Won't that become a bit original research ? It might just be better to have a few images throughout the article. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TheDJ. How would you capture an abstract concept like a musical genre in a single image? For example, what single image would you choose to represent punk rock in the article's infobox? --IllaZilla (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Support for an image does not make the use of an image mandatory. Ideally, we should be including illustrative images in the ledes of articles where we can, and if present this change would allow them to be incorporated into the infobox nicely. Right now most of the genre articles have a dearth of images (not one image on soul music?), so I don't see there being any warring over which image to have. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 15:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Re-enabling. An optional image shouldn't be controversial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) – talk 14:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it was controversial clearly. And I realise the other two editors didn't return to the conversation but there is not consensus for this edit yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki add, please~

Korean interwiki(ko:틀:음악 장르 정보) is ruled out.

Interwiki add, please~ --Idh0854 (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Popularity

"major popularity" must be removed. It is disputable, POV, and depends of time moment. mikka (t) 2 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

I agree. --Jones5 15:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Five or six years later, I also agree. "Mainstream popularity"? That's subject to infinite interpretations and is just a magnet for unverifiable peacockery. Do we expect editors to ever write, "Not very popular"? The absence of guidelines for usage makes it even worse, but the concept of shoehorning popularity into an infobox is fundamentally flawed. AtticusX (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Another reason to delete this parameter, apart from the inherent subjectivity of popularity, is that infobox fields are supposed to be reserved for concise, easily sum-uppable data about the subject. An infobox's brevity is inadequate to synopsize anything's popularity. AtticusX (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox music subgenre

The only difference between Template:Infobox music subgenre and this template is the addition of a notable artists parameter. Would anyone be against adding this parameter to this genre template? Or perhaps it's not needed at all. I don't know : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed. Too open to either POV or infobox bloat. It only appears to be used in 3 articles, so I say delete it & replace with this infobox in those usages. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, I agree. I'll replace the infoboxes. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition of a genre

I'm not sure where I should be asking or posting this, but assume this talk-page may be watched by many with extensive experience in defining music genres. In regards to a question I've posted at Talk:Bangla rock#Article concerns, I would appreciate further opinions, suggestions, or adjustments by others whom are more familiar with genre-related policy and procedure. Thank you.  -- WikHead (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

addition of hlist

I propose we add WP:HLIST to this template, which will allow us to change

{{Infobox music genre | name= Blues | bgcolor = #0000E1 | color = white | stylistic_origins = [[Folk music|{{nowrap|African American folk music}}]]<br />[[Work song]]s <br />[[Spiritual (music)|Spirituals]] | cultural_origins= Late 19th century, southern United States | instruments = {{nowrap begin}}[[Guitar]]{{·wrap}} [[Bass guitar]]{{·wrap}} [[Piano]]{{·wrap}} [[Harmonica]]{{·wrap}} [[Double bass]]{{·wrap}} [[Drum]]s{{·wrap}} [[Saxophone]]{{·wrap}} [[Vocal music|Vocals]]{{·wrap}} [[Trumpet]]{{·wrap}} [[Trombone]]{{nowrap end}} | popularity= Widespread since the early 20th century | derivatives = {{nowrap begin}}[[Bluegrass music|Bluegrass]]{{·wrap}} [[Jazz]]{{·wrap}} [[Rhythm and blues|R&B]]{{·wrap}} [[Rock and roll]]{{·wrap}} [[Rock music]]{{nowrap end}} | subgenrelist= List of genres of the blues | subgenres = {{nowrap begin}} [[Boogie-woogie]]{{·wrap}} [[Classic female blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Country blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Delta blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Electric blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Fife and drum blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Jump blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Piano blues]]{{nowrap end}} | fusiongenres= {{nowrap begin}} [[Blues rock]]{{·wrap}} [[African blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Punk blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Soul blues]]{{nowrap end}} | regional_scenes = {{nowrap begin}} [[British blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Canadian blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Chicago blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Detroit blues]]{{·wrap}} [[East Coast blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Kansas City blues (music)|Kansas City blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Louisiana blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Memphis blues]]{{·wrap}} [[New Orleans blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Piedmont blues]]{{·wrap}} [[St. Louis blues (music)|St. Louis blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Swamp blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Texas blues]]{{·wrap}} [[West Coast blues]]{{·wrap}} [[Hill country blues]]{{nowrap end}} | local_scenes= | other_topics= {{nowrap begin}} [[List of genres of the blues|Blues genres]]{{·wrap}} [[List of blues musicians|Blues musicians]]{{·wrap}} [[Blues scale]]{{·wrap}} [[Jug band]]{{·wrap}} [[Origins of the blues|Origins]]{{·wrap}} [[Country music]]{{nowrap end}} }}

to

{{Infobox music genre | name= Blues | bgcolor = #0000E1 | color = white | stylistic_origins = * [[Folk music|African American folk music]] * [[Work song]]s * [[Spiritual (music)|Spirituals]] | cultural_origins= Late 19th century, southern United States | instruments = * [[Guitar]] * [[Bass guitar]] * [[Piano]] * [[Harmonica]] * [[Double bass]] * [[Drum]]s * [[Saxophone]] * [[Vocal music|Vocals]] * [[Trumpet]] * [[Trombone]] | popularity= Widespread since the early 20th century | derivatives = * [[Bluegrass music|Bluegrass]] * [[Jazz]] * [[Rhythm and blues|R&B]] * [[Rock and roll]] * [[Rock music]] | subgenrelist= List of genres of the blues | subgenres = * [[Boogie-woogie]] * [[Classic female blues]] * [[Country blues]] * [[Delta blues]] * [[Electric blues]] * [[Fife and drum blues]] * [[Jump blues]] * [[Piano blues]] | fusiongenres= * [[Blues rock]] * [[African blues]] * [[Punk blues]] * [[Soul blues]] | regional_scenes = * [[British blues]] * [[Canadian blues]] * [[Chicago blues]] * [[Detroit blues]] * [[East Coast blues]] * [[Kansas City blues (music)|Kansas City blues]] * [[Louisiana blues]] * [[Memphis blues]] * [[New Orleans blues]] * [[Piedmont blues]] * [[St. Louis blues (music)|St. Louis blues]] * [[Swamp blues]] * [[Texas blues]] * [[West Coast blues]] * [[Hill country blues]] | local_scenes= | other_topics= * [[List of genres of the blues|Blues genres]] * [[List of blues musicians|Blues musicians]] * [[Blues scale]] * [[Jug band]] * [[Origins of the blues|Origins]] * [[Country music]] }}

eliminating all the nowrap markup, and replacing it with more meaningful list markup. all that is necessary to make this happen is to add "dataclass = hlist" to the template (e.g., this version of the sandbox). any objections? Frietjes (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no dataclass param in the infobox template, so I've changed it to bodyclass in the sandbox. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks, I forgot that we only have that in sidebars. Frietjes (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

since there are no objections, I have added the edit request (to update the template to this version of the sandbox). an example of the sandbox template in action can be see in this old version of Blues. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"Mainstream popularity"

Please, let's remove this parameter. It is not possible to measure or, in most cases, source, current and past "mainstream popularity" of a genre of music, and also has serious global scope issues (what is passé now in the West might be incredibly popular in other parts of the world still, something easily overlooked). I would like to remove it myself, as there seems to be a consensus to do so at the top section of this page, but I don't know if it would screw up transclusions of the template. - filelakeshoe 14:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Glam rock, nederpop, art rock probably others use that parameter, so you (anyone) would first have to go through every article that uses this template and move that information into the article, if it's not already there, before the parameter could be removed. If a zillion articles have used that param, then maybe a drive would be in order. You have my !vote to remove that parameter too. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I've experienced problems with this parameter too, and I'm not sure why we have it. Often contentious and difficult to source. No need to move it into article body, since there really shouldn't be anything in the infobox that isn't in the article body already. The only reason to move it would be if the info carried a citation and was missing from the body. Otherwise, count me as a vote for deleting the parameter. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been bold and started removing |popularity parameters from templates and invite others to do so too (the parameter has been left in the template for now). I agree with the above – if it's sourced, move it, if it's a simple vague "1980s" or "underground", no point in moving it, if it's a contentious "originally underground, now high in USA, the Netherlands, Brazil, Australia and Western Samoa, medium in Eastern Europe, Russia, Turkey and Iraq from 2003-2006" then just remove it as OR. - filelakeshoe 10:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes and hlist

I created a |footnotes= field and made the hlist only apply to the data fields. the issue was with Diablada. to see the problem, try clicking on the [show]/[hide] links in the collapsed "note" in the infobox in this version. it expands to fill the entire page. the problem is fairly simple. hlist specifies that each element in the list is not to be wrapped, but this article is using a list of footnotes, which are having the hlist class applied to them. there are basically two fixes (1) create a below field which does not use hlist (which is what I did) or (2) change the footnotes from a formal list to something else. let me know if there are any problems. we should probably check to see if there are any more of these? Frietjes (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A addition to the template?

Through browsing, I noticed articles for sports team such as, New York Yankees in their template they have a link at the top to send you to the article for the current season. I was thinking this could be done to the genre infobox to link to the current article on the yearly events of the genre. Such as the template on Hip hop music would have a link to the 2013 in hip hop music article, and the template on Country music would have a link to the 2013 in country music article, so on and so forth. This seems like a good idea, and would provide a easier way to access these articles, as I would think their would not many instances where 2013 in classical music would be linked in the prose of an article. STATic message me! 04:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, it has been a few months with no comments or opposition, so I would like to request that this template be given a subheading similar to Template: Infobox award doc can be viewed here and source here as I described in the above post. This would require the heading/subheading parameter added and then the "current_awards" in that parameter with "current_year". I have attempted to add this to the infobox in the sandbox, but it would not show up for me. If anyone with more knowledge of more complex template coding, please help me make this change a reality as I see it as nothing but a helpful positive change for the template. STATic message me! 23:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@STATicVapor: I agree with you that four months is long enough to wait for comments, and am willing to make your requested changes. I have drafted the necessary changes in the sandbox, and you can see them in action here. Note that I've placed the "2013 in..." section at the bottom, instead of at the top, since in my opinion the immediate importance of such a link is lower here than with a baseball team's sports season, or a recent/upcoming award ceremony. That's just my view as a fellow editor; let me know how strongly you feel about having it at the top.

As to the mechanics of this new parameter, you would call it on a specific page by setting current_year to yes. By default, it would then link to "<the current year> in <the page's name>", or, if there is no such article but there is one for the previous year, "<the previous year> in <the page's name>". If you want the second half of the construction to be anything other than the page's name, you can specify that with current_year_title. If you want to use a custom value for the whole thing, you can use current_year_override, though if you use that it won't automatically update to the current year unless you tell it to manually (which requires a fairly ugly sequence of parser functions). Understand that this wouldn't be added to any pages by default. You'd have to do that yourself on individual articles, at your own discretion.

Anyways, does this all sound good to you? Let me know if there's anything you think should be done differently, and we can try to come to an agreement. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@PinkAmpersand: Thanks a lot for taking the time to that, I really appreciate it. It all looks good to me, but in my opinion it would look much better at the top. If you think about it these 2013 in...music basically represent that genres "season," if that makes sense. As the yearly award and season would normally be on the article 365 days, even though Baseball is not that important in January and MTV VMAs are not that important around Grammy season, but what is currently happening in the genre of music you are looking up, would always be of significant interest as there is not downtime or offseason. If that argument did not sway you, its really no huge issue with me, I would just be happy to have in implemented in the template. Also one question, since it is going to 2014 soon, would it automaticly change with the new year or would it have to be manually changed? STATic message me! 16:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

1. If there were some discussion here, I'd be okay with putting it at the top, but since there hasn't been any, I'm uncomfortable making too large a change. It's not your fault, of course, that there hasn't been any, but I hope putting it at the bottom is a reasonable compromise. The icon's pretty big, so it should still get readers' attention.
2. Yes, it will change for the new year automatically (unless you use the current_year_override parameter). However, it won't switch to the new year's article until that article has been created, with the exception that, in the unlikely case that there's no article for "2013 in..." or "2014 in...", then it will redlink the latter, to encourage someone to create it. If you see a case where the "2014 in..." article exists, but the infobox still links to "2013 in...", try purging the page. If I'm not making sense now, I'll try to explain it in the documentation too.
3. I'm a bit tired right now, so I'll be making the edit later, lest I screw something up in my sleepy state. If another template editor or admin sees this before then, they can feel free to make the changes themselves.

— PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are right, that is fine to me, and thats great that it will change and link automatically. I am looking forward to this addition being made. STATic message me! 20:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@STATicVapor: Done. Let me know if there are any problems, or if you have any further requests regarding this parameter. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want to see the parameter in action, by the way, I've tried it out on Hip hop music. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

@PinkAmpersand: Okay, I will make sure to send a message your way. Thanks a lot again, I will begin adding it to articles. STATic message me! 17:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

BPM (Beats per minute)

I suggest to add a parameter for the BPM (Beats per minute). Most of the musics have a BPM. Currently, the reader has to search it in each article content. Ftiercel (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not relevant to most forms of music.--SabreBD (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to answer so late. Do you mean most of form of music haven't BPM or do you mean most of form of music haven't a tempo? I think almost all the music have a tempo. However, I can understand BPM is a unit mostly used for modern music. Either the unit is badly chosen, either the term is badly chosen. What about using the term tempo and the parameter can be filled with a unit or with classical terms like andante, presto. We can also type a range. Ftiercel (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I meant BPM, because you did not ask about tempo. However, I do not see how it would work for that either. What is the tempo of say the blues or rock music?--SabreBD (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Tweaks

I've left an amended version of the infobox in the sandbox whose primary tweaks are some padding of the title (abovestyle), its label formatting (labelstyle) and the linkname used in data6 ("List" rather than the more committed "Complete list"). I'm intending to transfer the amendments a few days hence. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

see this thread. Frietjes (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 August 2015

Please merge the sandbox to add colour tracking to identify WP:COLOUR violations. Alakzi (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

At your service.... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 February 2017

Per above RfC, please sync template to Template:Infobox music genre/sandbox Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Done — Train2104 (t • c) 03:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding "other_names" parameter

See the RfC close below. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is there support for this? I've left an example at Template:Infobox music genre/testcases. Would work well for articles like New wave (synthpop), Progressive rock (art rock, progressive pop) and Chillwave (hypnagogic pop). Synonymous terms, but still considered different genres. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

One problem is that "new wave" means different things in the US and in the UK – in the UK it would not necessarily have been associated with synthpop because it was used to describe immediate post-punk outfits... it would have been far more common in the UK press in the 1970s to use "new wave" to describe acts like Television, Blondie and Elvis Costello, who definitely weren't synthesizer-based bands. And conversely, the idea that 1980s mainstream pop acts like Culture Club, Tears for Fears or Howard Jones were in any way "new wave" would have had you laughed out of Britain. Richard3120 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Of course. It's the same thing with Shoegazing and Dream pop, as well as the other examples I named. "Art rock" is not "progressive rock", but history has treated those terms interchangeably. Similarly, "shoegazing" is what the British used to call "dream pop". It was only later that these all became their own distinguished genres.

Another example is Acid rock. There is a persistent edit war over whether "psychedelic rock" should be listed as a stylistic origin. According to numerous sources, "psychedelic rock" and "acid rock" mean the same thing. So having psychedelic rock as the "origin" of acid rock violates WP:NPOV, since it pushes the pov that acid rock came after psyche rock. That leaves |other_topics= as the only appropriate spot for linking psyche rock. But I think adding |other_names= is a fairer solution. Psychedelic and acid rock are inextricable – they shouldn't be linked in a "footnotes"-type section for both infoboxes.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I know other editors have different views – I was just highlighting one example where genre warriors could end up arguing about whether a particular act was new wave or not. I generally steer well clear of any genre discussions, it would take up too much of my editing time which would be better spent elsewhere. Richard3120 (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like fodder for WP:OR and edit wars. We already have genre warriors, this would likely go down the same road. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit wars rarely ensue with infoboxes that contain inline citations.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC

There is a unanimous consensus to add |other_names= to {{Infobox music genre}}. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Considering the ubiquity of musical genres that have more than one name, should |other_names= be added to {{Infobox music genre}}? (Testcase examples) --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Uncontroversial examples include Progressive rock/Classical rock, Post-punk revival/New rock revolution, Chillwave/Glo-fi, Garage rock/Garage punk, Experimental rock/Avant-rock, Post-punk/New musick, Krautrock/Kosmische musik, and Synthpop/Technopop. We get into more awkward territory with examples like Dream pop/Shoegaze and Hypnagogic pop/Chillwave, but nothing that can't be resolved with a talk page consensus.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Comprehensive the way an encyclopedia should be. Well done. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support – Summoned by bot. As noted in the RfC statement, music genres don't always have a single name. Meatsgains (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I too was invited by the bot. At first I thought that this would just be a sinkhole of editor time trying to get consensus on what to put in the field, but in looking at some of the genre pages I realize it's too late, the discussions are already been happening about which names to include in the lead sections. As long as the two match, it shouldn't be a problem, and the readers will have a choice of paragraph or point form for the information.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Invited by bot. Seems like a mostly positive addition, but it will need monitoring just like other parts of articles that can become bloated, unsourced, or show undue weight. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threaded discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WCAG AA or AAA?

There seems to be some disagreement on the accessibility standard this template should be held to. Currently, any infobox using this template with color contrast less than the WCAG AAA standard of 7:1 is added to the tracking category Category:Articles using Template:Infobox music genre with invalid colour combination. However, the standard music genre colors conform mostly to the more lenient WCAG AA 4.5:1 standard. Which color contrast ratio should be standard for infoboxes, AA or AAA? Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 06:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Should be 4.5:1 contrast ratio to satisfy the AA guideline. The AAA optional guideline is formulated to help people with 20/80 vision, but such people are not usually looking at Wikipedia without some form of vision correction. We don't need to meet this much more difficult (and optional) level of accessibility. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Please change "Ensure AAA contrast ratio" to "Ensure AA contrast ratio". This will bring the infobox into conformance with the "should be followed" AA level of color contrast. The AAA level is optional, and is not required anywhere by Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Clarification regarding country names in Infobox music genre

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force#Clarification regarding country names in infobox. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC on place names in infoboxes

Following the discussion mentioned above, Ojorojo has opened an RfC regarding how place names are written in music-related infoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Naming countries in infoboxes. Because the result will potentially affect this infobox's |location= parameter, users may wish to add their own comments there. LifeofTau 10:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Removal of typical instruments parameter

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) 16:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Typical instruments parameter – remove?

Following a discussion at Talk:New wave music#Typical instruments issue, I would like to poll the community about the typical instruments parameter. I would like to remove it from the template because the infobox should be restricted to simple facts but typical instruments of a music genre are never simple facts unless the genre is Bagpipes music.

A big problem with the parameter is that we never know if the list should be inclusive or exclusive. Should we list piano in rock and roll even though a good portion of rock and roll songs don't have piano? Should electronic drums and acoustic drums both be listed at new wave? Because it's usually one or the other, rarely both. So listing both would seem like a pretty strange "typical" setup.

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that the infobox is for summarizing key points in the article. The "typical instrumentation" parameter is far too often the only part of a genre article that mentions instruments. It is not summarizing any prose in the great majority of cases. The jazz article, for instance, doesn't have a single paragraph dedicated to instrumentation. The infobox tells us that "horns" are among the typical instruments in jazz, but nowhere in the article body is found the word "horns", and the word is not defined for the reader, who will not know whether a saxophone is considered a "horn" in jazz. (It is.)

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE also says "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves [its] purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I vote for less.

ILIL expressed support for removal, and I'm sure there are others. Thoughts? Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: move/copy this to WT:WPMU#Typical instruments parameter in Template:Infobox music genre? I wasn't aware of the other discussion at new wave. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go there and copy my opinion about it. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

• Remove the "typical instruments" parameter, per the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive 39#Typical instruments parameter in Template:Infobox music genre
• Add a tracking category as in this diff so that editors can assess the value in a "core instruments" parameter ili (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• To editor ­ili: so you want to replace "Typical instruments" with "Core instruments", keep the "instruments" parameter and track it with the existing Category:Articles using infobox music genre with a populated instruments parameter, is that correct? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• To editor Fred Gandt: did you do the testing when the tracking category was placed in the |data6= parameter? and did it work? Asking because I think I would prefer to wrap it in a {{Main other}} template at the bottom of the code before the noincluded /doc page. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The consensus was to remove the instruments parameter entirely. Don't waste your time on tracking or other nonsense. Make it go away. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Paine Ellsworth: No, I did not mean to replace the parameter with "core instruments". That discussion can come at a later time. Only remove the parameter entirely. Maybe a tracking category is unnecessary... We already have a list of articles that are currently using the parameter. ili (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• To editors ­ili and Binksternet:  done, and please update the template documentation as needed. Thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

No Paine; the discussion about the use of |instruments= never reached consensus, so I didn't touch, test or track the template. The discussion about tracking was about accurately determining to what degree the param was being misused, in order to inform the greater discussion, in order to reach consensus, but it was rendered unreasonable, so I went and did something else. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

To editor Fred Gandt: okay, got it, so are you okay with the removal of the |instruments= param? It can all be reversed until the consensus is stronger if you think it should be. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion fell into a coma and, almost the instant after it was laid to rest in archive, consensus was claimed here and bish-bash-bosh; none of the participants of the discussion were informed that the discussion had been deemed to have reached consensus, no admin or neutral party had concluded anything and the discussion wasn't closed (at the time). This maneuver is a forking sheet show. Ilil started out agreeing with my suggestion of altering the param to perhaps encourage more appropriate usage, then, when a vote was initiated, switched to a "remove" without explanation. That was their only participation in the discussion, and yet they decided that consensus was reached, and you Paine, seem clearly satisfied that they're right. I'm pinging @Izno: and @3family6: because reasons, but honestly, at this precise moment in time, don't give a flying fork whether it stays, goes or mutates into a giant dinosaur-looking-thing and stomps all over Tokyo. This sheet goes on all the time and I was tired of of years ago. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 21:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Our readers will be much better served by a prose-based treatment of "typical instruments" in the article body, as in the Conga (music) article which has an "Instrumentation" section. The infobox should be reserved purely for easy facts, but instrumentation in various musical genres is almost always a complex matter. The parameter should not have been added in the first place. The suggestion for tracking or testing the parameter would have delayed the inevitable deletion for no good reason. We are better off without it. Moving forward, each genre article should be given a section describing instrumentation, properly describing the complexity and richness. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. After thinking about it, I wonder if the parameter may have been misunderstood and even a bit abused by editors who in good faith were not as well-informed as they thought they were? And perhaps a section in the article would be a good thing while also being summarized in the infobox? In any case, I now am too involved to let my closure stand, and so I will reverse my decisions on this matter. You may look for someone else to further your non-consensical ends. All my edits have been rolled back. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what the consensus was, I was in favor of removing the parameter unless instruments are discussed, particularly if they are important to defining that particular style. The instruments were removed from the Viking metal infobox, even though I think that's a case where they should stay, and I used that as an example in the discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I understand? Why would a parameter need to be deleted? Why not just leave it empty in some cases? Isn't that done already? Why would a parameter in an infobox need to be completely eliminated? That would mean that even if instruments are discussed, there would be no parameter to summary list them for our readers. Aren't they the ones we should be thinking of? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 07:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet:

• much better served by a prose-based treatment – as a summary of article body content, infoboxes are supposed to be reliant on that content, not an alternative to it, so moot point.
• tracking or testing the parameter would have delayed the inevitable deletion for no good reason:

• "inevitable"? You have knowledge of the future? Cool.
• "delayed"? Is there a deadline I'm unaware of?
• "no good reason" to test and track template usage before making decisions about how to change it? I believe this to be a fine example of why we sadly need the template editor privilege.

@3family6:

• instruments were removed from the Viking metal infobox, even though I think that's a case where they should stay – and yet you're (now) in favor of removing the parameter that supports their summary? *facepalm*
• I don't know what the consensus was: exactly (jus' sayin').

@Paine: Thanks for rethinking, and Aren't [our readers] the ones we should be thinking of? – what kind of hippy-trippy nonsense is that? ;) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 08:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

To Fred: it's a pleasure! Let me go brush my long hair and... now where did I put that LSD??? !) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Visual Presentation

I find that this box doesn't play well with the HTML on some pages, for example the Death Metal page looks wrong when the page is too wide: this box overlaps boxes lower down on the page. I'd fix it but I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.186.124 (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Add an example of filled template?

Think it would be helpful. We already have the filled example here – Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force/Infobox, so maybe a link to that page would be enough. Solidest (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done; trivial but useful alteration to documentation. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 08:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"Genres and subgenres must be capitalized"

Is this really a necessary thing? Or is it just about the first character of the first genre in the list? (If it's true, then it should be reworded) This requirement is absolutely ignored everywhere. Even in the mentioned example – house music. Solidest (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• In documentation of {{Musician}} it is said that "Most genres are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. However, the first word in a list of multiple genres should be capitalized." I guess that's why most people ignore capitalization rule. And I think that it would be useful to replace with this words current capitalization requirement here. Solidest (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what {{Musician}} says, and I think it should apply here as well. Richard3120 (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)