Talk:Taylor Momsen

Does anyone know why she retired her acting carrier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 03:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Reply

@SNUGGUMS: I am confused by your recent edits and edit summary and was wondering if you could clear some things up. I see that you removed hard rock, alternative rock, and blues rock because they aren't sourced in the article. Fair enough, but why then did you add rock and keep post-grunge? Neither of those genres are explicitly sourced in the article either. And in this case, why are you removing the subgenres? These genres are also listed in the Pretty Reckless article. That article doesn't list a generic genre like rock in the infobox. I understand that in some scenarios using broader terms like "rock" is preferred. Like in cases where many different genres are attributed to the bands/artists that have a lengthy discography with many sound changes, like the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. But most band articles use more specific subgenres or derivative forms that the artist is most commonly described as. Just look at the articles of bands and artists mentioned in this very article: Kurt Cobain, Chris Cornell, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, Marilyn Manson, Halestorm, Evanescence and Shirley Manson of Garbage. All of these articles use subgenres or derivative forms. So I don't understand why you seem to be implying that subgenres can't be used on Wikipedia. If you could clear up the confusion, that would be great. I think I could find sources for the genres that you removed as well. Thanks. Bowling is life (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Somehow I didn't notice the lack of support for post-grunge or I would've taken that out sooner than I did. Anyway, I went with "rock" based on the prose describing the Pretty Reckless as a "rock band", so that seemed like a safer thing to keep. As for subgenres, have a look at Template:Infobox musical artist#genre. This unambiguously notes how using main genres instead is preferred. The choice to give precedence to the latter likely was implemented to aid with summing up somebody's work in broad terms. I either way don't know why other pages would opt for the former. Whoever first added them here was being lazy and negligent if just copying-and-pasting from another infobox without any effort to implement supporting references. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Okay and why is it acceptable to use subgenres on all the examples I listed but not here? The genres on the pages I listed are sourced and many of the genres where decided upon by consensus on the talk page. Are you saying that these articles are doing it wrong and should be using broader genres? Some of these articles are listed as a Good Article or even a Featured Article. There are many more examples of band articles that use subgenres in the infobox. For example, it wouldn't make sense to just call Pink Floyd a rock or psychedelic band when they are most know as a progressive rock band. I'm just saying that I thought it was fine to use subgenres as long as you don't include too many. Bowling is life (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

I thought providing the link I mentioned above made it obvious that I actually don't endorse listing subgenres within the infoboxes of any other articles. With or without proper sourcing, those are better for prose instead. Yes, using broader genres would be better for what you listed, and there are times I've seen pages outside of those get their subgenre listings justifiably replaced with main genres. Any past agreements elsewhere for subgenres were misguided at best. Users from those threads either didn't know at the time about template recommendations for infobox genres or simply didn't care. Regardless, it would certainly be over-the-top to list five or more on any biography article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC) Reply