This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Vaporwave on 29 March 2017. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
Who — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.173.104 ( talk) 04:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
EdwardH
(
talk)
18:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Two closely related micro-genres of limited notability. I propose that Hardvapour be merged into Vaporwave. The content in Hardvapour can easily be explained in the context of Vaporwave, and the latter article is of a reasonable size that merging will not cause article size or undue weight issues. Acousmana ( talk) 12:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Merging should be avoided if: ... The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short.
Like post-punk, neo-Expressionism, or New Labour, ‘hardvapour’ defines itself in opposition to a preceding movement. If vaporwave (the Tumblr-beloved microgenre of pitch-shifted lounge music that sounds like a chopped-and-screwed mix of the Windows 95 start-up tone) sounds like glossy mall muzak transmitted from a futuristic virtual plaza, then hardvapour sees that plaza hijacked by a group of Balkan cyberpunks, hacking into the tannoy and blasting out gabber as they throw shapes in the strobelight.
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources
Articles where individual sections create an undue weight problem ... [are one situation] where spinoff subarticles become necessary, and, when done properly, they create the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible.
It seems constructive encyclopaedic editing of this page results in unwarranted accusations of "disruption" and vandalism. Editor assumes they have the authority to undo edits because they created the article. There are clear errors in the article, and it's riddled with WP:OR. Acousmana ( talk) 22:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
And I have a fair more to go. I could keep reverting you stupid fucking edits, but then my ass would be blocked. Seriously though, there's no fucking original research. It's pissing me off that your crappy comprehension skills are leading you to come to this conclusion. This is perfect verification that you are not the one to alter this article in any way imaginable! I'm getting sick of your stupid nonsense. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
More diverse range of sources needed, right now there are 4 used for the entire article. One is cited 15 times, another 10 times, the remaining two, 4 cites each. Acousmana ( talk) 20:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Vaporwave on 29 March 2017. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
Who — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.173.104 ( talk) 04:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
EdwardH
(
talk)
18:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)Two closely related micro-genres of limited notability. I propose that Hardvapour be merged into Vaporwave. The content in Hardvapour can easily be explained in the context of Vaporwave, and the latter article is of a reasonable size that merging will not cause article size or undue weight issues. Acousmana ( talk) 12:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Merging should be avoided if: ... The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short.
Like post-punk, neo-Expressionism, or New Labour, ‘hardvapour’ defines itself in opposition to a preceding movement. If vaporwave (the Tumblr-beloved microgenre of pitch-shifted lounge music that sounds like a chopped-and-screwed mix of the Windows 95 start-up tone) sounds like glossy mall muzak transmitted from a futuristic virtual plaza, then hardvapour sees that plaza hijacked by a group of Balkan cyberpunks, hacking into the tannoy and blasting out gabber as they throw shapes in the strobelight.
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources
Articles where individual sections create an undue weight problem ... [are one situation] where spinoff subarticles become necessary, and, when done properly, they create the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible.
It seems constructive encyclopaedic editing of this page results in unwarranted accusations of "disruption" and vandalism. Editor assumes they have the authority to undo edits because they created the article. There are clear errors in the article, and it's riddled with WP:OR. Acousmana ( talk) 22:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
And I have a fair more to go. I could keep reverting you stupid fucking edits, but then my ass would be blocked. Seriously though, there's no fucking original research. It's pissing me off that your crappy comprehension skills are leading you to come to this conclusion. This is perfect verification that you are not the one to alter this article in any way imaginable! I'm getting sick of your stupid nonsense. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
More diverse range of sources needed, right now there are 4 used for the entire article. One is cited 15 times, another 10 times, the remaining two, 4 cites each. Acousmana ( talk) 20:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)