User talk:Solidest/Archives/2022

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Solidest. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I believe that when merging infobox Bach composition into infobox musical composition, a Bach example in the doc would be appropriate, - actually Bach came first, the other was derived from it. BWV 1 might be a good example, TFA-to-be on 25 March. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The templates themselves were merged back in 2020, and Template:Infobox Bach composition is now a redirect. I haven't touched the examples themselves in the documentation, as I only do styling and TemplateData things. And on the English wikipedia, as far as I know, it is not possible to automatically generate an example via TemplateData, i.e. Module:TemplateDataDoc is not used here. So feel free to build the examples manually if needed :) Solidest (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

some other day I may ;) - great work that you do! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

infobox fixes in music

Thank you for quality articles such as Maceo Plex, Ed Banger Records discography and Ed Banger Records discography split from articles, for infobox fixes for musical compositions, hundreds of them, for other gnomish work such as cleaning categories and moving pages, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2698 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

See [1] RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

Yes, there are several improvements and it's just ok to be described like that as for me. After all, you can always look more closely before reverting obviously useful stuff, I guess. Cheers. Solidest (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Cool, but let's give some time to discussion to avoid having to roll everything back if there will be objection. The consensus is still needed for bot works. Solidest (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

..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)

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)

Yes, the reason "unsupported" seems strange and unclear. I think it's right to put subgroups of contemporary rnb, soul, funk, and other direct subgenres in the template. But I don't like that there were both genres and subgenres in the table. As these are equal. I'd rather leave it the way I edited it + added funk column. unless the reason for that removal was the presence of separate templates for soul (for cont rnb it seems there is no such thing). Solidest (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Is funk a subgenre of R&B? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Currently it is listed in categories in Category:Soul music genres which is under Category:Rhythm and blues music genres. But the articles themselves describe relation between funk and soul close to the same as with soul and rnb - something in between a sub-genre and a derivative. So it would be more appropriate to say that funk is a subgenre of R&B and derived from soul, rather than it's subgenre of soul. Solidest (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

A while ago (on a different IP address, which has since been replaced by this one), I made some changes to the R&B template that you approved. But guess what? Not only did Binksternet undo my edits, but I was also blocked for "disruptive editing". (The reason why I waited until today to tell you all this is because I didn't want to risk being blocked for block evasion.) Did you ever try and talk with Binksternet and tell them that you approved my edits? 24.181.38.38 (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you register and describe your position on the discussion page? Registered active users are more trustworthy than IP users. I personally don't want to get into another argument in which I don't have much knowledge and which is outside of my field of interest. Solidest (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)