Talk:Idles

RfC: For the infobox/introduction, should we cite a third party definition of the band's musical genre, or use the band's own definition of their music?

Hi all. Pinging @Dekai Averett: @64.57.49.68: @Mashaunix:, all who have discussed this issue previously.

Idles clearly describe themselves as *not* a punk band. However many third parties would indeed label their music as such. I'm quite tired of seeing edits to this page back and forth between the two perspectives.

Can we please discuss and agree what the media consensus says their 'genre' is for the infobox?

I'd like to avoid further rollback wars between editors, so for now I'll leave the band as 'Punk rock' as per the most recent settled edit, and leave a warning to all users in the code - it is best to discuss the article here rather than getting into further edit disputes.

Please vote below whether

• Yes - stating what you think the consensus for their genre is, based on media sources
• No you think the band's interpretation should be used

Thanks in anticipation. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC). Llemiles (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

!Votes

Yes - Infoboxes list facts about the article, not opinions such as those of the band themselves. So I would describe the band as rock, alt rock, and punk rock in the introduction and infobox. From there, we can then cite the band's point of view in the Style of Music section which allows for more nuance. Llemiles (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes - A bands opinion on their own music can not be used as a reliable source. Music genres for the most part are objective and when lots of sources describe a band as a certain style (in this case punk) it should be put in the info box. Dekai Averett (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2019 (EDT)

• Neither. The genre in the lede/infobox should reflect consensus of the good sources available, rather than listing every description that has ever been used, and certainly should not not be based on what one source says. If there isn't agreement among the sources as to what the band's genre is, we should limit it in the lede and infobox to a general genre that covers all of those that appear in sources, e.g. Rock music. Any other descriptions with significant enough sourcing, and how the band describes their own music, can be included in the 'Musical style' section. --Michig (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment - okay thank you Michig for your input. On that logic, this RfC ought to be extended to also establish what the 'consensus' is. I'd appreciate input on the below:
Musicbrainz states they are new wave, post-punk, punk rock.
Discogs say rock, alt rock, punk.
Allmusic say Pop/Rock, Alternative Rock, Indie Rock and Noise-Rock.
So the general verdict is rock, alt rock, and punk rock. -- Llemiles (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Neither Musicbrainz, or Discogs are reliable sources. Allmusic bios and staff reviews are reliable, but the sidebars that list multiple genres are not, so none of the above are valid. --Michig (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hm okay noted. I'm not entirely sure there are many other useful sources that directly address the question we have though. The Guardian describe the band as 'pop' and 'punk', the Independent describe the band as 'punk', while NME referred to them as 'fun punk' (which I'm sure is not a genre). If anyone has further sources for the band's genre(s), I'd appreciate it, but for now I'm not particularly sure we can fully rule out Discogs/Musicbrainz/Allmusic. A lot of band album reviews and articles in newspapers refrain from clearly categorising the genre of the music. But as I said, if editors can find such instances, please do include them here. Llemiles (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes – The band's sound is widely associated with punk (and to a lesser extent post-punk and hardcore) by critics and journalist, as a quick google search will reveal. From what I've read I would be in favor of "rock" in the lead, "punk rock, indie[/alternative] rock, post-punk" in the infobox and details in the musical style section. Such details should include descriptions of their sound (and its evolution over the 2 albums) from BOTH published commentators AND the band itself. If disruptive edits are persistent, an explanatory sentence on genre/style could also be added to the lead. In any case, a note in the infobox should explain the result of this discussion.--MASHAUNIX 10:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment - why not write it in such a way that both sides are represented? I think the Musical style section does this pretty well (the refs help this enormously). The point is (imo) that the band's view of what kind of music they make is just as important as the views from external sources attempting to pigeon-hole them. You can write these differing views in such a way that its more compelling and interwoven instead of clashing or oppositional points of view. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Artikle in a German Newspaper

https://www.taz.de/!5530217/ --109.41.2.79 (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 26 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to make changes at this time, per the discussion below. It seems likely that the Idles redirect should be discussed at WP:RFD; were that to result in retargeting the redirect to the band and not somewhere else, it might be worth revisiting this issue. Dekimasuよ! 09:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Idles (band) → Idles – Current page at "Idles" redirects to Idlès, which can be distinguished by the accent mark. Additionally, the band is a much more likely search target on English Wikipedia than the Algerian city. Conifer (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Even ignoring WP:SMALLDIFFS, pageviews indicate the band is the overwhelming WP:primary topic. - Station1 (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom. As the above user notes, this is the WP:primary topic in English. The page Idlès is unlikely to receive anywhere near the same level of interest as it is a small and relatively underreported village. The topic Idles (plural of Idle) in software engineering is not the main spelling of the term, let alone a major page either. Idle itself redirects to Idleness rather than the software term, showing its insignificance. --Llemiles (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose In books see "idles are" test; idles is the plural of idle, which is a noun and term in software engineering. "idles is" test again produces the software term idles as a plural not an obscure pop band. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect Idles to Idle (disambiguation) In ictu oculi (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The book search is not helpful when dealing with new phenomenons like bands, because they get high public interest but have little published about them in print.

Blanket redirecting the Idles page to the Idle (disambiguation) page would send users seeking the band article (who are in the majority) to an incorrect disambiguation page?

The software term Idle has been adequately covered by a hatnote pointing users at Idlès to the Idle disambiguation. I don't see any reason not to add that same hatnote to a prospective Idles page about the band.--Llemiles (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Per in ictu oculi, redirect to idle (disambiguation). Fails the "idles is" test._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I don't understand much about this test, but I don't think it has much on criteria. This is the primary topic. --Quiz shows 09:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per IIO. Clear lack of primary topic, and Idles should redirect to Idle (disambiguation).  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 29 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

---

• Idles (band) → Idles
• Idles → Idles (disambiguation)

– I'm going to bring this up again. Idles (band) is getting 1,500 views per day currently (434,000 in the last year) and there's nothing on the disambiguation page that is remotely close (a town - with the accent - in Algeria that gets practically zero views, redirects to misspellings of Idol and Ideles, a redirect to idleness, and an American punk band, The Teen Idles, who no-one is ever going to type in "Idles" to find). This is a clear primary topic. When the page is getting 50 times the traffic of Idles, this is fairly clear. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support and add a hatnote to the Algerian city that has an accent. While there is a dictionary definition ("he idles away the day") and as a plural of various technical terms, among the pages a user could reasonably expect to be at the name "idles" there is a clear primary topic. --Yaksar (let's chat) 00:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think SMALLDETAILS usually works with the absence of diacritics in a candidate for PT (see User:Crouch, Swale/When it doubt its safest to disambiguate#SMALLDETAILS) but in this case the band gets 29,285 while the place gets 80[[1]] so its pretty clear that English speakers are far more likely to be looking for this than the place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• The move will definitely make sense: the redirect Idles was receiving virtually no views before the band came to prominence three years ago, so it's reasonable to assume that the majority of the 25 readers who land on the dab page every day are looking for the band. What makes me uneasy about the move is how recent this popularity is. A primary topic is generally expected to have at least some indication of long-term significance, and that usually takes a bit longer than a few years of popularity to gauge. – Uanfala (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• I would agree with that if the alternatives at the dab page had any significant views, or if people were likely to be typing in "Idles" to look for anything else. The pageviews (for over two years now) make it quite clear that that no-one actually is. The band release a new album (on September 25, I think) that it appears is almost certain to be a #1 in the UK, so it is unlikely that the views are likely to go down any time soon. It does seem somewhat pointless that we're making all of those people click twice to find the right page. An average view count of 1,300 per day over the last two years is evidence of consistent viewing. Black Kite (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Notfrompedro (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per convincing stats above. --Michig (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SMALLDETAILS and/or WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. The overwhelming pageviews are convincing. Station1 (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support move of Idles (band) to Idles, but a disambiguation page is not required: disambiguation can be achieved with a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's better if the dab page is preserved; otherwise, we'd need to have a hatnote linking to at least five articles, and that's a bit too much to handle in a hatnote. – Uanfala (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Conifer (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2020 (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.