Template talk:Rock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This table is too wide and displays very poorly in IE6 (the table overlaps the text in the left-hand navbar. Bkonrad | Talk 16:31, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Two lists 2 cumbia rock 3 Rock en español 4 Proposal for a heirarchy or this template 5 Bloated 6 Christian Rock 7 Discuss changes?

[edit] Two lists

Why are there two lists in this template? There doesn't seem to be a substantial difference in the context of each list. Should we merge them, or could someone who knows why there are two perhaps sort them appropriately? Cheers (Westius 05:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC))

i noticed this also. if nobody has any objections i think we should sort it alphabetically. danhash 04:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] cumbia rock

i removed cumbia rock; check here for more info. danhash 18:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rock en español

I've removed this from the template as it's not really a genre so much as a linguistic category, and we can't list every language in which rock music is made. It belongs in World rock instead, as per the template of that name. ProhibitOnions 19:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for a heirarchy or this template

I think it would make this template a lot more useful if there were a two or maybe three tiered division with the more notable genres towards the top and in bigger/bolder type. I know this could start a debate over just how notable each genre is and whether it deserves to be first tier or second tier or third tier or whatever, but I think it's pretty clear that some of the genres are a whole lot more notable than others. For example, I think we'd all agree that Punk rock and Heavy metal are a whole lot more notable as genres than Flamenco-rock or Raga rock (yes, I know some songs of very famous groups are considered Raga rock, but as a genre, most people haven't even heard of it!).

Anyway, having that big list with no ranking makes it hard to find the genre you're looking for at a quick glance, which is what navigation templates are designed for. So it's pretty clear to me that it needs to be sorted. I'm thinking three-tiered might be the best solution, with the biggest most well-known genres, somewhat well known ones in the middle, and a group at the bottom of genres that are mostly just of interest to a smaller sub-culture, geographical region, or to music historians. ENpeeOHvee 06:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I put together this rough draft of what the template would look like, formatted and sorted and such. As for the categorizations, I wasn't totally sure about all of them, but given pretty good general knowledge of musice, I'm pretty sure at least 75% of these are categorized right, and with the remainder it was always a debate about whether it was first or second tier, or second or third tier - (I'm pretty sure none of the third tier ones would belong in first tier and vice versa). So anyhow, let me know what you think about the formatting and everything (I'm still fairly new to designing tables like this...) ENpeeOHvee 08:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

	Rock and roll | Rock genres
	Alternative rock | British Invasion | Christian rock | Country rock | Hard rock | Heavy metal | Power pop | Punk rock | Rockabilly | Soft rock | Southern rock |
	Arena rock | Blues-rock | Boogaloo | Emo | Folk-rock | Garage rock | Girl group | Glam rock | Hardcore | Instrumental rock | Jam band | Mod | Progressive rock | Psychedelic | Surf | Symphonic rock | Yacht rock
	Aboriginal rock | Anatolian rock | Art rock | Avant-rock | Cello rock | Chicano rock | Desert rock | Detroit rock | Dialect rock | Flamenco-rock | Glam metal | Heartland rock | Jangle pop | Krautrock | Madchester | Mersey sound | Piano rock | Post-rock | Pub rock (Aussie) | Pub rock (UK) | Punta rock | Raga rock | Raï rock | Rockoson | Samba-rock | Skiffle |

[edit] Bloated

This template is seriously bloated. I've never even heard of most of these. Templates like this are for assisting with navigation, not simply listing related articles. Someone should either cut down on the number of genres listed or remove it entirely and just link to List of rock genres. --Ortzinator 15:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Rock

Does Christian Rock deserve a place on the template? After reading the article it seems that it isn't a genre like all the others, but could be any of the genres (just with Christian lyrics). Bands that have been identified as 'Christian Rock' include:

• Petra (which is prog-rock)
• Switchfoot (which is poppy post-grunge)
• Relient K (which is pop-punk)
• Sixpence None The Richer (pop rock)

Even those bands that are similar and often misidentified such a Coldplay, U2, Thrice, and Creed vary VERY widely.

It is not a genre, as bands range from punk, to pop, to hardcore, to folk. Why then is it in rock genres? Dark jedi requiem 03:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire. Genre doesn't just mean sound. It can mean theme, too (for instance, death metal has dark themes by default). I'd argue that Christian rock is a general, blanket term for a number of hybrid subgenres that marry Christian religious-themed music (remember, Gospel music is considered a genre, too) with various rock subgenres, including (as you noted) pop rock, punk rock, folk rock, etc. Thus I feel it's fine in the template. Also, it's a fairly notable one - I've known about the existance of it for so long I don't remember when I first heard about it (and I don't come from a family that listens to it, either!). I know of at least two stations in my area that cater specifically to Christian rock, so, obviously, notable, both in terms of religious culture and music. (Side note: I'm not even Christian, I'm agnostic, and tend to for the most part dislike Christian rock, so this has nothing to do with me defending a genre based on my religious preferences or musical preferences, either). 63.21.45.223 06:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Than it is a sub-sub genre instead of genre of rock. Subgenres do not get a place on this list. Since emo, which is relativily punk (Which has different themes), although popular, does not get on the list.Dark jedi requiem 16:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss changes?

Is that what? one and only template you've seen? I introduced standard appearance, navigational template used all over wp. you wanna have your ugly table? fine by me. bye--132.73.80.97 10:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there are a nubmer of different tables. Second, it's not considered civl if you keep changing things without discussion, particularly a template. WesleyDodds 10:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you attempted to discuss something? didn't you revert my edits w/o a single word of explanation? --132.73.80.97 10:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted by a number of people. WesleyDodds 13:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

users, wesley, users. not people. 3 to be precise, two of them ip, so I wouldn't bet that it was not you. --132.73.80.97 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)