Wikipedia talk:Genre warrior

Idea/thought

• I think 'Genre Warriors' can also be the kind of editor that is determined that their favourite group should be characterised according the their opinion and take it as an insult if any other suggestions are made. There are also what i refer to as 'Genre Fiddlers' that make small minor changes to genres that are so insignificant that they seem pointless. --neon white talk 13:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a very interesting point. Why not add it to the behavioral element of the essay, I don't own it. Please, chip in. :-) We could also have an "alternative name" section where we add "Genre Fiddler" and a brief description on how (if at all) it differs. — Realist² 15:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I made a few additions from your suggestions, hope you don't mind. :-) — Realist² 18:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind. An example of 'genre fiddling' i once came across once was an ip that went around changing pop punk to punk pop or vice versa, i can't remember. --neon white talk 22:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! — Realist² 22:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• "In the case of cited genres being removed, it is vandalism." - It's not technically vandalism unless we can prove it's intentionally disruptive. --neon white talk 12:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• We could safely argue that it wastes valuable time, since we have to revert and some editors feel obligated to watchlist these articles, thus adding to their work load. When does someone go from making good faith mistakes to being disruptive? I would argue that they are not being "disruptive" until the first warning. However, after being told to stop, if they continue or/and start reverting back to their bad edit, then their actions can be considered "disruptive". I suppose its the state of mind, the mens rea of the editor. Once they know they must stop, but still continue, then it becomes bad. Thought? — Realist² 14:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Proud to be a genre warrior. (The Elfoid (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Oh FFS Realist

I spent like... ages doing this and this only for you to have done it all before me? Thanks a bunch! Only messing. I didn't read it fully so as not to steal any of your ideas for my own essay. Good job though :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 07:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll add a see also section. ;D — R² 13:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Additions

Feel free to gut these; it may also be worth adding a {{humor}} tag to the page to show that although it is a real problem, it isn't the end of the world to have to deal with these people; merely a very clear and present irritant. Rodhullandemu 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I like your additions to the article. We could possibly add the humor tag, but I've seen worse articles without it. I'm sure this would be deleted if it weren't in my name space. — R² 23:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the humor tag is intended to be that when we direct GWs here, although there's a serious purpose to the page, to tell them that we don't take them seriously, and that they are talking to themselves- if you don't think the tag is likely to have that effect, I can live without it. Rodhullandemu 23:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

i'm ok with it. --neon white talk 12:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Template Warning

Would anyone be interested in developing some sort of generic template notice or warning to use on the talkpages of potential Genre Warriors? Something like that gentle note mentioned above, except perhaps more generic or universally aplicable. Ideas? Suggestions of where to start? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates can be found here. :) — R² 14:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sweet! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 17:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian Music

I'm not sure if (or where) this can fit into the article, but as a christian that listens to a large amount of music, i have noticed that there is a particular subset of Genre Warriors that focus on adding or removing christian tags from musicians whose faith is wuestionable, such as Underoath, Anberlin, The Classic Crime and Family Force 5. If that can make it in great, if not it's not the end of the world. Spencerz (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fake genres

Check out the page history for Showbread to see some action that replaces sourced material with a made up genre.--3family6 (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"95% of its time"...

Your essay, your call, but I must admit that for me, this phrase has a distinctly Conservapedian ring. Surely a good edit to the genre field is a good edit, and a bad edit is a bad edit, by all the usual criteria. "Some people are spending their time on something I consider vexing or unimportant!" is an unfruitful line of thought. (Also, "it" is not an appropriate pronoun for referring to a person, even via leaden circumlocutions like "account or IP".) 84.203.32.161 (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur in the concept that I don't believe 95% is very accurate. Even if it were accurate, where's the evidence? I support changing to "most of its time", or, "most of their time". Jacedc (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I was referred to as a genre warrior

I've just been called a genre warrior for removing Goth rock tags from a group of visual kei j-rock bands. How are you supposed to prove that your edit is informative rather than disruptive? I've listened to these bands and they're metal and hardcore punk, far from Goth rock yet I'm being labelled as a genre warrior. Shikenkanbaby (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest following this process

1. Be bold and remove the genres
2. Explain why you're removing those genres. The best method here is to point out that those genres were added without providing references and indicate that there are no references in the article to support the genre either.
3. Be prepared to support your claim that the genre is not supported on the article's talk page.

This will not work if the genres are referenced as then you have to prove that the reference is not from a reliable source.

The reverse situation, adding a new genre, is usually easier to deal with as you only need to provide a reliable source that clearly identifies the subject as being of some genre. AllMusic reviews are usually a good place of that, but do not use the "genre cloud" that's on the left side of most articles. That is not reliable. Other larger music news sources are also helpful to this end.

The key, however, is not going into an article and simply adding or removing genres based on opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

THE GENRE WARRIORS I AM FACED WITH

Almost everyday, I make sure that everything in Wikipedia runs smoothly, but I come across 2 of the most ANNOYING genre warriors - Mr. Techno from Greece and the New Order vandal from Japan. It is exhausting work trying to revert all their edits. Until they are blocked, we will be begging for protection

For more information see these LTA cases:
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Techno genre warrior from Greece
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/New Order vandal

All this will provide future reference.

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Genre Warriors?

Sorry, I'm a little bit of a grammar nazi: Why is "Genre Warrior" capitalized? As far as I can tell it's not really a proper noun unless we make it one, but the term strikes me as a common noun (similar to how the term "grammar nazi" is a common noun). If "the Genre Warriors" were an actual, organized group or some other faction, then it would be a proper noun, but they're not. It's just an expository term. Kind regards, Jacedc (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm proposing that we de-capitalize "Genre Warrior". Jacedc (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're referring to the page title, your proposal would be "Genre warrior" as page titles start with a capital letter. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to its mention throughout the article. Mid-sentence it should be "genre warrior", at the beginning of a sentence, "Genre warrior". And yeah, all article titles start with a capital letter. I don't think you could even do it any otherway except maybe with DISPLAYTITLE, but that's not what I'm proposing anyway. Jacedc (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct per MOS:CAPS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And thus we view the birth of a new Wikipedia essay: Capitalization W/warriors (which, incidentally, often strike genre descriptions).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done A bot may need to be used if there are a lot of links linking to WP:Genre Warrior, but that's a redirect anyway so it shouldn't matter. I went ahead and fixed all of the WP:SHORTCUTs and mentions of it in-article. Jacedc (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Genre_Warrior&curid=19839439&diff=659070177&oldid=656484722 this is not correct. The article should have been moved! Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware, but WP:Genre warrior already existed (it redirected to WP:Genre Warrior), so it didn't let me move it. It would have needed to be deleted first, so I thought copy-pasting would be quicker/more convenient than bothering a sysop. Jacedc (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't ever do that. It actually creates more work: Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I apologize, I didn't think about that. Jacedc (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The stupidity of "genre warring"

Both 'sides' of it.

This is a redundant and pointless thing to get upset about. The majority of albums that are frequently subjected to this sort of thing have genres sourced from websites like allmusic, sometimes critics even, just because they have some notability. I suppose just omitting the genre if the band never explicitly describes one just doesn't make any sense, does it?

Every once and a while someone will come along who has a better understanding of x genre(s) in general and improve an article. This may or may not be unsourced, but even if it is, it's generally reverted at some point. Articles will go through never ending cycles of applicable and inapplicable genres. The priority for sources - or at the very least a common consensus - allows Wikipedia to function as intended, and although this tiny, largely insignificant section will never stop being altered as though it is somehow the most important part of an article describing an album, it's a natural byproduct that is honestly a good sign.

So, the stupid part of it? That a page had to be made to describe when people take this to extremes and the fact that they ever bothered to do so. More inane than the act itself are the people who accuse someone simply trying to improve a page of "genre warring" simply because they reverted or made a change once or twice.

The Fragile is a double LP released by Nine Inch Nails in 1999. It is comprised largely of alternative rock rooted material that also spans and combines at least ten different genres from post-industrial music, through dark ambient, downtempo layers, past shoegazing as well as noise rock and all the way to its own weird hit or miss industrial rock/alternative rock tinged DnB hybrid. I chose to highlight this record as its genre section has been a mess for a long time, going back and forth and honestly never being quite as honest as vague labels like "electronic" or "alternative" that really never illustrate a genre but at least can encompass the genres that would otherwise be named. I find it mildly hilarious that someone who may have spent hours sourcing and providing information for the article of a particular genre could put down one they clearly recognize if it is there and source it as acceptably as any other descriptor, yet some critic from NME or Pitchfork somehow wins out with an erroneous label such as "art rock", or very commonly with Nine Inch Nails, "industrial", which is a genre that broadly is actually understood by very few people outside of small, obscure niches.

I'm really not sure why a page about "genre warring" exists and I would think it be far better by now to simply either pick a functional umbrella term and lock that bit down or change the way music is written about on Wikipedia so that a genre is not displayed at the top of the page and instead simply spoken about in all the sources quoted. That'd be a whole lot better since we're not going to allow ourselves to simply just use the correct or most applicable genre(s) for any given work and prevent the editing of it when an article is half a decade old so that we can waste less time fighting and spend more time being productive.

My two cents/rant. It's not that complicated, and at the end of the day, music is music. If there's no given genre by the artist and no real consensus with minimal conflict (i.e. 90% of all that is cited can concur that Wish You Were Here is "progressive rock" - hardly anyone can concur as to what genre Geogaddi belongs to other than "electronic", which is like having a toaster and calling it "appliance" and nothing more), perhaps it's just a better idea not to bother with a genre box so prominent in the first place.

Swim Jonse (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia has to be attributable to reliable sources. Genres are no exception. There's no such thing as an expert on genres, only people who think they're an expert, as genres and musical styles are dubious and subjective to begin with. You'd get one person who says "no this song is obviously this, anyone with ears can hear it!" and then another person would say "No, I disagree, it's obviously this" when both proposals are both unsupported by a reliable source and are trivial, obscure genres to begin with. In other words, unless you have a substantial basis in reliable sources, it's pointless to squabble about genres. If you have multiple conflicting sources, then you have to balance reliability/quality and quantity. It's actually a really simple process.

Genre warriors are inexperienced users who insist on changing the genre and are usually solely dedicated to such things. I've also encountered people who insist on taking a single genre and pasting it across all bands that sound similar to each other. For instance, alternative metal is a label often added to any post-grunge hard rock band under the sun, even though in quite a few cases that genre is not supported by sources. These, I would have to say, are the most annoying type of genre warriors. The ones that are champions of a single label. User:Jacedc (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, people who write for AllMusic are critics, and the genres listed in AllMusic's sidebar are considered unreliable. Also, I will take this opportunity to add that this is why I don't like musical styles, only genres. Genres are straight forward, either rock, pop, hip hop, grunge, punk, etc. Any further down than that and you get into the intricacies of a single song that incorporate a lot of influences from a lot of different genres then you're left with a jumbled mess of obscure and fabricated terms that have little to no meaning in the bigger scheme of music history. As that is my personal opinion, though, we have to do it the "Wikipedia way". User:Jacedc (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

1. The page exists as a good way to get people up to speed on Wikipedia's stance on excessive genre tinkering, because there's a lot of newbies who want to push their personal opinion and self-proclaimed expertise in the realm of genre, without learning anything about How Wikipedia works. Its a good way to let them know that all the tinkering is generally unwelcome, and that its a pre-established thing, not a personal disagreement thing.
2. Any discussions to make the genre box less prevalent haven't gained any consensus for change. For one, it can be a rather defining characteristic of a musician/album/song. Its one of the first things readers look to. (It makes sense, I do it all the time as a reader myself. I hear of a band name I've never heard of, look them up, and read further if it says "alternative rock", or lose interest entirely if it says "Bro Country".) Another problem is that, honestly, its hard to make it less prevalent, when there is such a massive number of album/song articles that consist of little more than a lead, a tracklist, and an infobox. Its going to be prevalent no matter what in a lot of these articles. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this meant to be humorous?

The page does not seem to have Template:Humor embedded anywhere, but so much of it is clearly tongue-in-cheek. It seems to be even less content-oriented than the WikiFauna pages, but isn't clearly labeled as such. I'm not sure what to make of it... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: What page ? This page ? No, as Walter Görlitz explains. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No. It's not a piece of humour. It's a very large problem. Anons and new editors who are not familiar with verifiability and think that instinctive they know a band's genre take it upon themselves to change genre listing in infoboxes. It's sufficiently serious that there are four user warnings related to this starting at {{uw-genre1}}. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it certainly needs a lot of work if you want it to look like a legit WP:ESSAY. It looks like one of the WikiFauna pages at the moment, and I was half-tempted to tag it as such, or add something else that I thought would contribute to the humour. You should start by removing the apparently tongue-in-cheek image of a Thracian warrior that someone on Commons apparently really wants us to stop using. Furthermore, the existence of warning templates does not prove that a problem is extensive enough to warrant an essay (anons who edit-war over minutiae tend to get blocked too fast to be a serious problem), and those templates don't actually appear to see a whole lot of use.[1][2][3][4] Perhaps they should be put to MFD? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

No! The templates are fine, I use them all the time. IMO this page maybe could use some tiding up (I haven't really looked) but definitely not deleted. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, right. I just remembered what day it still is in most of the world (I live in Japan, where it turned April 2 90 minutes ago). Still, normally you are supposed to prank me, not falsely accuse me of pranking you ... I never actually made the April Fools' Day joke that "this page should be deleted"; I said it should be either completely rewritten so as not to be so tongue-in-cheek, or reclassified as being a piece of humour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

New wave

I have noticed that an extreme amount of artists are erroneously categorized solely as "new wave". Sure, these artists might have existed during the time when new wave was popular. They might even have recorded some early material that could be considered new wave. But there main body of work is either pop or rock. Still, all these bands are categorized solely as "new wave". Some genre warrior must be behind this. Aikclaes (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

First, "their" rather than "there".

Second, which bands are you talking about?

Third, if a significant percentage of their works are any specific genre, then it's valid to list them as that genre. Some bands stay with a genre for the duration of their career. Others switch. I know one band that started out as a country rock (California country rock), then went to soft rock, then to new wave, then to alternative rock and they have dabbled in Americana. They should be legitimately listed as new wave.

Finally, there are several recordings that attract genre warriors. I have placed them on my watch list and when the genre changes, I check if the editor has made or is making other unsourced genre claims (or uses weak sources to support genre changes). There is an editor in Italy, one in North Carolina, one in Mexico, a recent one from Russia, and a few in South America that I have followed and have seen patterns in their editing. It's one thing to follow an editor who is a genre warrior around and recognize the pattern. It's quite another thing to claim that there is a conspiracy. As a follow-up to my third point, when you find some of these suspicious articles look at the edit history. Go back to the earliest edits to see what the article states the genre is. Go forward 100 or 250 edits to see if the genre is present. Continue until you find the single edit where the genre was added. Take note of who made the edit. If, after five or more articles, you see a pattern, either by user name, IP location or ISP (for anons), then let us know and we can investigate further. Otherwise, don't let it keep you up at nights. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Link to the recent genre warring RfC

There was a recent RfC about genre warring, but I can't seem to find it. Can someone find it and link to it? Bright☀ 10:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not vandalism?

Since when? This edit states that it's not a form of vandalism. It uses both bold and italics, which is not only an eyesore but also unnecessarily uses two forms of emphasis. It's also blatantly wrong. I see no precedent for this. Many admins will block editors for genre warring. Unless that's supported, or a reason can be given, I will be removing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor TYPO (I think) ... to be corrected

In this edit, [if I got that right] the paragraph [originally] saying

If a disagreement arises over how a source categorizes an artist, album or song, do not edit war over the it. Instead, take the issue to the talk page, and start an RfC, if needed.

was added.

The edit seems to have been a good faith edit, but the words "over the it" are wrong (and they are still there!) and ... that seems to be an unintentional TYPO or something. (right?)

(( ["TMI" section?] ... [Feel free to SKIP this entire ("indented") paragraph...] Ironically, those 3 words -- "over the it" -- have survived since being inserted, even though there has been some reverting, etc. -- almost bordering on edit warring! -- about a comma earlier in that sentence (after the word "album", ... iirc). Would that be called an "Oxford" comma? Interesting, that ...during that flurry of edits, no one seems to have noticed the Typo!))

I was "this" close to just changing it myself, right here and right now. But I was not sure whether the intent was

<< do not edit war over it. >>

or ... something that actually contains the words "over the" ... such as

<< do not edit war over the genre. >>

So ... I thought I would give you (whomever is reading this) ... a chance to chime in before changing that sentence.

I realize that this is not a big deal. So, feel free to either comment or not ... either before or after that TYPO gets edited.

No deadline ... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Kacey Musgraves' Starcrossed

Musgraves has stated that this album, Star-Crossed (album), has a foot in country and on multiple reviews, and streaming sites have labeled this album as country and pop. A user refuses to accept this edit, and even reverted my edit that I made with a source that called the album Country Pop. (Aricmfergie (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

There's an easy solution: the infobox should be a summary of the article and both pop and country-pop listed in a style section and the infobox now. So as long as the genres are sourced in the article, they can be in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Is the sentence "From the [...] to the glam metal stomp of Arabella" definitive language or not?

As above, that sentence is taken from this source and is used in the Arabella (song) article. It merely felt like a passing mention and not a true analysis of the song's genre. Neocorelight (Talk) 11:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Genres should reflect the consensus of several sources

You can find the odd review that refers to punk rock in relation to Billy Joel's Glass Houses, but neither punk rockers nor Joel fans are likely to appreciate it appearing in the Infobox and Categories as a punk rock album. Just "rock" and "pop" will do fine. I guess the essay makes that point regarding Pet Sounds and emo, but perhaps the idea that genres must reflect the consensus of writers and reviewers can be given more emphasis in the essay. The odd review mentioning a "glam rock" influence is not enough to label an REM album as glam rock, nor is an REM member making a possibly joking remark that an album contains a lot of "bubblegum pop" tracks sufficient to label an REM album as "bubblegum pop". Again, just "rock" and "alternative rock" are the consensus descriptions of REM's music. Wikipedia's music articles are currently plagued by a guy who finds some random reviews then adds multiple inappropriate genres to the article. Sure he cites them, but in a WP:SYNTHy king of way. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Updating "In case of dispute" section

(Yeah, I wouldn't be here if I wasn't part of a genre war myself, unfortunately.)

I think the section mentioned in the title should have an update, since it was probably a bit more awkward reporting straight to WP:ANI. From this discussion, @Serial Number 54129 said that, as genre warring is purely a content dispute, the report "should have been made at either WP:ANEW or protection filed at WP:RFPP." (The relevant dispute got resolved anyway.) Pinged Serial to give them the option of being involved here. Carlinal (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it was a content dispute before it became a subpar behavioral one :) and although it might take two to genre war, to takes only one to edit disruptively but needs multiple time and editorial resources to restore order. So, I don't think you were strictly "part of a genre war", yourself  :) ——Serial 13:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)