 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
None of the tags were appropriate. It is accurately referenced. It is a term used to refer to a form of live electronic music. Viewed as a genre by some Additional content can be easily found to flesh this stub out. Measles ( talk) 22:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I really think neologisms like this are more appropriate for wiktionary. It is in the Neologism category, so the tag of neologism is appropriate for an article such as this needing further work. One usage in a book shows it exists (verifyability) but doesn't really establish if it is notable, and it doesn't make the article properly referenced. Even being widely used doesn't establish if it is notable, it needs to be widely used and have people discussing it. It should have a copy in wikitionary even if a more detailed article here is justifiable - I'm skeptical - it should also be in wiktionary. You definitely should not delete that tag even if you disagree with the others.
- Maybe if you can come up with a selection of articles not just saying things fall into this genre but discussion this supposed new genre itself that might fully establish notability but that might not be enough. Music journalists are always coming up with new genres to give themselves something to write about, so mainstream sources using this beyond the music press would very much help this article. I think it would take a lot of work to save this article and I'd be surprised it can be done but I think there must be other articles that would be a better use of your time. You can always try of course, I just wouldn't recommend it. -- Horkana ( talk) 03:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with your assessment and view your cautionary note as a threat and therefore not WP:GF.The fact that this happens to be a neologism is secondary. It's a term that exists and has currency as a meaningful descriptor within a particular community. Thanks for your opinion. I will replace the tags with one appropriate to the matter at hand. Measles ( talk) 13:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I should choose my words more carefully if you think I'm not in "good faith". I thought tagging the article rather than rushing to delete it for being poorly sourced was good faith, so many of the articles I edit get savaged by deletionist editors who'd ask for a citation to prove the sky is blue. Arguably this article should have mention in the mainstream beyond just music culture - a very high standard of notability some editors choose to apply - but I did search and the word does seem to have some usage so I do hope you can improve the article and get a wide range of sources but if you can get only references from the music industry that might be enough to show notability and get this article up to decent standard beyond just a dictionary definition. -- Horkana ( talk) 03:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- no worries, there are a few sources to draw upon, three are academic mentions, Mixmag is one usable popular domain source, but in the long run, this article may become a sub-section of an article entitled Laptop performer or Laptop musician; for which references can be found in greater abundance. Measles ( talk) 22:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
So I should call all the music I made in the 90s "desktronica"?
Dumb.
P.S. The term is a portmanteau of "desktop computer" and "electronica". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.130.149 ( talk) 23:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
None of the tags were appropriate. It is accurately referenced. It is a term used to refer to a form of live electronic music. Viewed as a genre by some Additional content can be easily found to flesh this stub out. Measles ( talk) 22:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- I really think neologisms like this are more appropriate for wiktionary. It is in the Neologism category, so the tag of neologism is appropriate for an article such as this needing further work. One usage in a book shows it exists (verifyability) but doesn't really establish if it is notable, and it doesn't make the article properly referenced. Even being widely used doesn't establish if it is notable, it needs to be widely used and have people discussing it. It should have a copy in wikitionary even if a more detailed article here is justifiable - I'm skeptical - it should also be in wiktionary. You definitely should not delete that tag even if you disagree with the others.
- Maybe if you can come up with a selection of articles not just saying things fall into this genre but discussion this supposed new genre itself that might fully establish notability but that might not be enough. Music journalists are always coming up with new genres to give themselves something to write about, so mainstream sources using this beyond the music press would very much help this article. I think it would take a lot of work to save this article and I'd be surprised it can be done but I think there must be other articles that would be a better use of your time. You can always try of course, I just wouldn't recommend it. -- Horkana ( talk) 03:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with your assessment and view your cautionary note as a threat and therefore not WP:GF.The fact that this happens to be a neologism is secondary. It's a term that exists and has currency as a meaningful descriptor within a particular community. Thanks for your opinion. I will replace the tags with one appropriate to the matter at hand. Measles ( talk) 13:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I should choose my words more carefully if you think I'm not in "good faith". I thought tagging the article rather than rushing to delete it for being poorly sourced was good faith, so many of the articles I edit get savaged by deletionist editors who'd ask for a citation to prove the sky is blue. Arguably this article should have mention in the mainstream beyond just music culture - a very high standard of notability some editors choose to apply - but I did search and the word does seem to have some usage so I do hope you can improve the article and get a wide range of sources but if you can get only references from the music industry that might be enough to show notability and get this article up to decent standard beyond just a dictionary definition. -- Horkana ( talk) 03:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- no worries, there are a few sources to draw upon, three are academic mentions, Mixmag is one usable popular domain source, but in the long run, this article may become a sub-section of an article entitled Laptop performer or Laptop musician; for which references can be found in greater abundance. Measles ( talk) 22:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
So I should call all the music I made in the 90s "desktronica"?
Dumb.
P.S. The term is a portmanteau of "desktop computer" and "electronica". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.130.149 ( talk) 23:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)