ThomasO1989 (talk | contribs) |
Atmospherpolyphonic (talk | contribs) →In Re: Indie Soul: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
Good luck! [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
Good luck! [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
||
:Thank you for your thoughtful response. I was not borderline saying it I was trying to say it without saying it in an inflammatory way that the music genre is African American derived and it is unsurprising that a white person in the Netherlands would not be aware. The frustration lies in the fact that it is such a pervasive term and genre that a google search will return 1000's of artist who call them selves indie soul or soul pop and 10x100's of references to artists being so at every notable music publication. It would equivalent to someone trying to speedy delete an article on [[Highlife]] which is like the most popular music in the entire Africa continent. And given [[Racial bias on Wikipedia]] it seemed like a classic example of that when I only was doing it because I noticed a shocking absence. [[User:Atmospherpolyphonic|Atmospherpolyphonic]] ([[User talk:Atmospherpolyphonic|talk]]) 21:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:27, 5 January 2024
Vandalism part 33
Serge's 33rd iteration of his own personal WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Feel free to report anything you feel may need admin intervention. Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Consistently Heinous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Received multiple warnings to stop adding inappropriate WikiProject Banners to article talk pages but went back and re-added them. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Yo Ho Ho!
Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
- Same to you! Good seeing you around again! Sergecross73 msg me 21:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
New message from Sjones23
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox person § Education and alma mater parameters. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't chime in. I don't deal with this sort of thing enough to know anything or formulate a stance really. Sergecross73 msg me 21:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – January 2024
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).
- Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.
- Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531
- The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.
- This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
Single question
Quick question, I have plans to write about a single from an album that never got it's own cover artwork. Do I just leave the infobox image blank? Panini! • 🥪 18:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yup! Sergecross73 msg me 19:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
In Re: Indie Soul
1. [Undeniable - The Story Independent Soul Music Movement]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy8QF0q82Lk (which spawned a tv series with PBS focused on individual artists [Indie Soul Journey]https://www.netaonline.org/episode/indie-soul-journeys [Undeniable director brings TV project]https://rollingout.com/2017/01/25/undeniable-director-brings-latest-project-indie-soul-journeys-television/) 2. [Essential Guide to Contemporary RnB Soul Music]https://thebluesproject.co/2023/05/essential-guide-contemporary-rnb-soul-music/ 3. [How Indie Soul became a multibillion dollar genre of music]https://www.deezer.com/us/episode/277717612?utm_campaign=clipboard-generic&utm_source=user_sharing&utm_content=talk_episode-277717612&deferredFl=1 4. A google search for "indie-soul artist" which will generate 100's and 100's of articles by Rolling Stone, Fader, Billboard, Reuters, PBS, Music Blogs about song/album/artists who clearly state they are indie-soul genre including dozens of grammy nominees and winners. The 10,000+ playlists named indie soul on whichever music streamer you use. 5. Is there a way I can provide you text book notations?
In Regards to the discussion I was trying to be polite and do not want to blast him on a page. Accept I directly told him I was in the process of adding sources and was in the middle of doing so and told him I was working backwards. Then he AFD'd it after instantaneously getting rejected from speedy. For saying I made up the subject and term. At no point did he follow any of the basic steps of guide to delete. The same statements the attempted deleter made on my talk page, first saying "I made up the term" then that indie cant be a genre it justs means "independent." The case with all things that statement can be applied to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_rock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_folk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_electronic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_pop So did he mark those for deletion for the same? No. Because that carries no logic. Nor does a comment about "well an article only refers to the artist as indie soul once" Does Rolling Stone need to repeat it over and over in the same article? You only to tell me a banana is yellow once. No logic either. It seems he has another prerogative in this. These are all independent music styles as has been documented and accepted for decades because they developed on their own trajectories with more collaboration than at studio level, alternative production techniques(budget), and more freedom, and historically had more media attention as they are traditionally white music. And artists who identify themselves as indie-soul, of which there are a tremendous amount of very recognized artists now, are a distinct genre same as each of the above, and including this one. Indie soul is referenced consistently on all major media platforms, in every music publication of note, and on playlists and curation at all major music services as a genre, and the other authority "google search trends" list as a separate music genre. It is not even at all niche. It is actually preposterous his action read of white unawareness. It shouldn't have ever even been an issue. It may not be part of his world community which is fine, so he should have reserved participation. I believe that an appropriate information page on this topic ads to the Diversity of wikipedia. I noticed a non-representive and glaring hole. I am in music composition university, studying music. And now he again has marked it for deletion with everything he could think of. If you don't know about a subject and aren't willing to google you should move on to something familiar. Because his comments where transparently entirely uniformed at best.
I am hoping the case it is something he is just unfamiliar because the zealotous nature of trying to remove a pervasive music genre with exactly similar ones from more "traditional" American genres seems unusual to say the least. This page serves the mission of wikipedia to provide knowledge on a subject of interest that was inadequately ordered and addressed, without any actual question of notability and is a significant part of many communities. A simple google search would tell him that in about 20 sec's. I believe it to be a great start to an interesting subject in Wikipedias music, right along with the multiple types of other music. Black music is not a monolith. And I think you will find the references quite fine as it is easy to find thousands of articles, festivals, reviews and documentsa bout indie-soul artists. This isn't a controversial topic and if it is for someone specifically they should reflect. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi there Atmospherpolyphonic. I know Wikipedia isn't always intuitive. It takes time to learn how it works, it has many concepts that your average casual reader wouldn't know about it. Its why I personally recommend people don't jump straight into article creation. But since that ship has sailed, here's a few general pointers:
- You should be making your case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indie soul, not my talk page. Its fate will be decided by a WP:CONSENSUS of the discussion there. An uninvolved Admin or experienced editor will review the discussion after a week or so has passed and come to conclusion based on what was presented and how convincing the arguments were.
- A lot of editors abuse Wikipedia, misusing it in hopes make up or create a new term, or popularize obscure ones. Between that, and the fact that most legitimate music genre already have their own article, explains why you're getting so much skepticism on your on your creation.
- Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In short, it basically said that its invalid to point to other things existing to justify your own creation. Just because you find something similar that exists doesn't justify your creation - it may just mean both should be deleted. Hypothetically speaking anyways.
- Please assume good faith. Some of your arguments are bordering on accusing people of being ignorant of music or social/racial issues. You have no evidence to make such a claim at this point, so I do not taking this approach. It isn't likely to help you out.
So what should you do then?
- Prove that it meets the WP:GNG, which is our general standard on what should and should not have its own article. The best way would be to find sources that cover the subject in significant detail. Not just name-drop it or mention it in passing, but more like its the focus of the source.
- Some good approaches include:
- Recognizable, mainstream publications, many good examples are listed off at WP:RSMUSIC.
- Be able to prove and/or quantify how much the subject is covered. Things like "This entire Rolling Stone article (provide link) is 5 paragraphs long and entirely about the subject" or "This book dedicates 3 pages on the subject".
- Try to make specific, but concise arguments. Large, wall-of-text responses may lose the interest of readers and go ignored.
Good luck! Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thoughtful response. I was not borderline saying it I was trying to say it without saying it in an inflammatory way that the music genre is African American derived and it is unsurprising that a white person in the Netherlands would not be aware. The frustration lies in the fact that it is such a pervasive term and genre that a google search will return 1000's of artist who call them selves indie soul or soul pop and 10x100's of references to artists being so at every notable music publication. It would equivalent to someone trying to speedy delete an article on Highlife which is like the most popular music in the entire Africa continent. And given Racial bias on Wikipedia it seemed like a classic example of that when I only was doing it because I noticed a shocking absence. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)