178.121.23.248 (talk) Tag: Reply |
47.36.25.163 (talk) →A Talk About R&B: new section Tag: New topic |
||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
::::On wikidata, this can be handled with qualifiers or individual new items for every revival or wave. On wikipedia it is more problematic. We can do a second infobox if this is a separate revival. Or just specify 2 times 1st wave + 2nd wave in both fields. [[User:Solidest|Solidest]] ([[User talk:Solidest#top|talk]]) 18:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC) |
::::On wikidata, this can be handled with qualifiers or individual new items for every revival or wave. On wikipedia it is more problematic. We can do a second infobox if this is a separate revival. Or just specify 2 times 1st wave + 2nd wave in both fields. [[User:Solidest|Solidest]] ([[User talk:Solidest#top|talk]]) 18:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::Yes, probably two infoboxes is the right solution, because when a subsequent wave has reliable sources to back up its notability, then it would probably be correct (and simple too) to add a separate section/sub-section to article to describe it, and that sub-section can have its own infobox. [[Special:Contributions/178.121.23.248|178.121.23.248]] ([[User talk:178.121.23.248|talk]]) 21:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC) |
:::::Yes, probably two infoboxes is the right solution, because when a subsequent wave has reliable sources to back up its notability, then it would probably be correct (and simple too) to add a separate section/sub-section to article to describe it, and that sub-section can have its own infobox. [[Special:Contributions/178.121.23.248|178.121.23.248]] ([[User talk:178.121.23.248|talk]]) 21:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC) |
||
== A Talk About R&B == |
|||
When you took off Post-Disco from the R&B template, you left Soul music in. I assume you meant you approved it being there, but another user has recently reverted it. Is it okay if I put it back? [[Special:Contributions/47.36.25.163|47.36.25.163]] ([[User talk:47.36.25.163|talk]]) 23:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:43, 14 July 2022
Theremin
You didn't say anything about the invalid parameter in the edit summary and thank you for fixing that, as for lowercase or upper is not a broken issue. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) — Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Kinda like the section above, I guess. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Mohan Sithara
Today i got a call from newspaper that some one added the death date of Mohan Sithara, living music composer from Kerala, India. When i checked the page found you added that info as mistake. I corrected & Please care it in future. Happy Editing. --Manojk (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Manojk, I didn't add this information, but fixed the infobox filling with already existing info. This can be seen at the link you posted. Solidest (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry. My mistake. it was a edit from IP--Manojk (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Music genre hierarchy
Hello! I got what you mean about the genre hierarchy topic after 6 months ☠️ Actually, i'm not using any site for make the genre orders except the Wikipedia articles. I categorized the pop genres by visited the articles and see what the articles say. If the article says "rock" then i put it on other genres section, like Britpop. I don't use any untusted sites. I'm monitoring the reliable sites on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
So sorry for the late response -GogoLion (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- @GogoLion Hi, as far as I remember, then it was about how Allmusic builds their hierarchy. They don't have a direct division into Pop and Rock, and the authors of the site themselves stated on their forum that they divide genres into subcategories according to "we choose from what we have" principle. And they even made corrections after I pointed out obvious mistakes on the forums. So I would question their hierarchy. And if the subgenres are stated directly in the description (prose) on Allmusic or any other reliable sources, that's another level of information and that can be used on wikipedia. Solidest (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Traditional music
I hope you have time to fix the hundreds and hundreds (nearly a thousand when I am correct) links to disambiguation pages that you created with your change of Traditional music. That effort would be sincerely appreciated. And I think I have missed the discussion about this controversial change. The Banner talk 11:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be a problem to correct references with bots from traditional music to traditional folk music, as that was most often used in that context. But you're right, we should first discuss the new form of the article and whether everyone would agree with disambiguation. Solidest (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Started discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Traditional music as disambiguation. Solidest (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- And you should fix the mess you have made. The Banner talk 15:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
One more thing I would like to discuss about Infobox music genre
..that is unrelated to derivatives/subgenres/whatelse discussion. Would you support or not renaming vague "Cultural origins" to explicit "Place of origin"? 178.121.41.135 (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- We need to be guided by wikidata, since someday these fields will be imported from there as other wikipedias already do, so I would support splitting into:
- Date of origin : inception (P571)
- Place of origin : location of creation (P1071) / country of origin (P495). Solidest (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea 178.121.41.135 (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I thought about this a bit more and found objection to it. How to deal with resurgent genres while having separate fields? Some genres have "waves" of popularity and that is reflected in their infoboxes. I just can't remember where I've seen it recently, but there're multiple examples. I mean, say, some genre had 2 waves, first one in the 1990s in location A, and second one in the 200s in location B. When the fields are separated, the connection of 1990s to A is lost, for example. And (I may be wrong) P571 seemingly allows for only one date. 178.121.41.135 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- On wikidata, this can be handled with qualifiers or individual new items for every revival or wave. On wikipedia it is more problematic. We can do a second infobox if this is a separate revival. Or just specify 2 times 1st wave + 2nd wave in both fields. Solidest (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, probably two infoboxes is the right solution, because when a subsequent wave has reliable sources to back up its notability, then it would probably be correct (and simple too) to add a separate section/sub-section to article to describe it, and that sub-section can have its own infobox. 178.121.23.248 (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- On wikidata, this can be handled with qualifiers or individual new items for every revival or wave. On wikipedia it is more problematic. We can do a second infobox if this is a separate revival. Or just specify 2 times 1st wave + 2nd wave in both fields. Solidest (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I thought about this a bit more and found objection to it. How to deal with resurgent genres while having separate fields? Some genres have "waves" of popularity and that is reflected in their infoboxes. I just can't remember where I've seen it recently, but there're multiple examples. I mean, say, some genre had 2 waves, first one in the 1990s in location A, and second one in the 200s in location B. When the fields are separated, the connection of 1990s to A is lost, for example. And (I may be wrong) P571 seemingly allows for only one date. 178.121.41.135 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
A Talk About R&B
When you took off Post-Disco from the R&B template, you left Soul music in. I assume you meant you approved it being there, but another user has recently reverted it. Is it okay if I put it back? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)