User talk:Life of Tau/Archive 1

Welcome!

° Hello, Life of Tau, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Sro23 (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Your recent editing history at Love You To shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Komplottet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norwegian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please note that United States presidential election, 2016 and several related articles are under a 1RR (see the talk page for more information). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry to put this back, I just wanted to reply to your edit summary: The notice does not imply that your edit was in any way wrong or disallowed; this merely serves as a notification to be aware of the discretionary sanctions in the topic area. It is simply a matter of procedure rather than a reflection on your editing, so please don't take offense at it. =) Feel free to remove this notice now if you wish. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Life of Tau. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for keeping a level head in the discussion at Talk:Acid jazz, and sorry you have been attacked - that's just no fun. Have some tea. bonadea contributions talk 14:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Some IP

Hi, Please be more nice on Wikipedia

Some IP 18:34 23/01/2017 GMT

Hello, user 109.155.84.216. My apologies if you found my referring to you as "some IP" in my comment to another user on the talk page of ÷ (album) to be callous, derogatory, insensitive, dismissive, inconsiderate, or anything else; I did not mean to offend you with it. Life of Tau (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC

Thank you and yes it is dismissive as the way it is said makes it seem like you think my point should be put to one side may I suggest you change how it is worded to something like another user

109.155.84.216 (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Life of Tau: URGENT: if no response is given by 15:00 today GMT than it will be passed on to adminstrators. 86.178.216.38 (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Life of Tau. You have new messages at 86.136.136.110's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For the record, there's nothing here that merits administrative action. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Shape of You

Can you keep an eye the page once again? Thanks. Destiny Leo (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Destiny Leo: Will do. LifeofTau 04:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

SoY: Source for tropical house

Hi User:Life of Tau, just wondered if this genre confirms Shape of You is tropical house, and not just tropical house-influenced ([1]), most websites that talk about the song, however say the same thing as Wikipedia, "Shape of You, a pop and dancehall song with tropical house effects and strummy acoustics" ([2], [3]). --Theo Mandela (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: While the Spinoff article does explicitly call "Shape of You" a tropical house song, my research into the website and the article's writer, asking for other users' thoughts on the reliable sources noticeboard, and rereading Wikipedia's policies regarding reliable sources has led me to conclude that this webpage should not be used as a source in this case. Long story short, The Spinoff is indeed a legitimate third party publication subject to editorial standards that meet Wikipedia's requirements. In the article in question, however, the credited writer, Mitchell Houlbrooke, is oddly referred to as an "aggrieved reader" who sent the site a response to an article. While Mr. Houlbrooke does seem to be a writer for The Spinoff (he has contributed to numerous articles and has one other credited to him alone), the way he is described in the "Shape of You" article means we cannot assume that what he has written has been treated any differently to how a response from any other reader would be: repeated verbatim without being subject to any of the aforementioned editorial standards. As such, Mr. Houlbrooke's piece cannot be considered anything more than the opinion of a person with no connection to the site and no independent credibility as a music journalist, which is unsuitable as a source.
I hope this helps. Apologies for how long it took to reply. Feel free to ask if you have any other questions. LifeofTau 07:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

All good User:Life of Tau, since I've been editing I've mainly focused on giving all song articles genres (that are reliable), so might have a few questions for you about reliable sources for genres to come, as you know what your talking about. If you look at Lovers on the Sun page and the reference for genres, wouldn't you say that "country and folk-infused EDM" doesn't mean that "Country, folk, EDM" should be in the genres list and that it should instead say in "composition" section that's only infused and is just an EDM song? If you say the genres here [4] at my last edit to the page are reliable they could be returned. Lastly are the genres for Slide (Calvin Harris song) reliable too? Thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: You are correct regarding the "Lovers on the Sun" source; given the how the article describes the song, only EDM should be listed as a genre.
The EDM.com article cited in the linked revision makes no mention of "Lovers on the Sun" or even David Guetta, so it's appropriate that the reference citing it was removed.

As for "Slide", yes, Forbes and Fact are independent publications that are acceptable as sources, and the genres given in the article are supported by their respective sources.

Regarding your goal to add sourced genres to every song article, it is certainly commendable, though most likely unachievable (there are over 50,000 of them). Nonetheless, any work put into improving song articles will be well appreciated. In case you'd like it, here's some advice:

• In my experience with finding and gathering sources (whether for music genres or anything else), a proper job means doing at least fifteen minute's worth of research for every minute spent actually editing.
• Searching within "news" in your preferred engine (ex: google.com/news, yahoo.com/news) will produce only results from online journals, keeping out chat forums, personal blogs, and other sites unsuitable as sources (Note: sources found this way are still not always reliable).
• Idolator.com, Forbes, Billboard.com, the Tampa Bay Times, and Entertainment Weekly are the sites I've found most likely to use genres to describe songs; I always check these before doing any general search.
• Searching site:[site address] "[song title]" will return results only from the site that mention the song by name.

Hope this helps. LifeofTau 22:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, this is definitely helpful and confirms what I already thought (Forbes, Billboard being most reliable and using "news" search on Google), as for genres for every article, I just meant chart songs, old chart songs from after 2010 and house songs really, but also any song pages I come across. Noticed a lot of pages like House Work (song) use "Dance" as a substitute for having no genres, and I don't agree with that. And some pages like Hype (Dizzee Rascal and Calvin Harris song) claim many genres but no sources. The Touch (Little Mix song) page is also quite a mess.--Theo Mandela (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Son cubano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cha-cha-chá. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

OVERLINK

See WP:OVERLINK and just because other stuff articles exist that are formatted incorrectly doesn't mean that this one should be. Point me to those and I'l fix them as well. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I appreciate your desire to uphold WP:OVERLINK, but it doesn't apply in this case. Take a look at the example at WP:WikiProject Music – linking the typical instruments in music genre infoboxes is standard, as seen in the rock, jazz, disco, country, reggae, blues, soul, house, bluegrass, heavy metal, rhythm and blues, lounge, hardstyle, funk, K-pop, J-pop, Mandopop, dance-pop, electro, ska, Miami bass, grime, contemporary R&B, flamenco, polka, crunk, gospel, surf music, Afrobeat, drum and bass, baggy, schlager, Paisley Underground, new jack swing, grunge, trap, cakewalk, New Age music, glitch, punk rock, zydeco, jungle, skiffle, horrorcore, snap, dansband, world, intelligent dance music, bossa nova, boogie-woogie, wonky pop, contemporary Christian music, highlife, blackgaze, bouyon, chiptune, yé-yé, kayōkyoku, beat, hardcore, merengue, dubstep, rocksteady, boogie, old-time music, ryūkōka, doo-wop, moombahton, big band, downtempo, trance, Jesus music, samba, Britpop, mariachi, dub, emo, and vaporwave articles. I find it highly unlikely that all 70+ of these music genre articles are formatted incorrectly. LifeofTau 19:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

What are the genres?

Hi User:Life of Tau, just wondered in this source for "Hype" - Dizzee Rascal & Calvin Harris ([5]) what genres are they calling it? Hope you can help, --Theo Mandela (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Hi, Theo. The article makes mention of five genres and one category of genre in its discussion of "Hype": big beat, "grime-pop", EDM, grime, hyphy, and future house. Of these, I would say that only big beat and future house are directly stated by the article to be genres of the song. Here's a breakdown explaining my decision for each case:

• Big beat: "this Big Beat Banger..." "Banger" is understood to mean the song; Aaron is explicitly calling the song big beat.
• "Grime-pop": Aaron is describing only Dizzee Rascal's flow, not the song as a whole; genre descriptions must be in reference to the entire song for them to be valid.
• EDM and grime: These are mentioned together in the sentence "If stadium EDM decides to bolster the grime revival, I would not be mad at more of this." This sentence, while suggestive of the song being grime (listing EDM would be unnecessary as grime is a genre of EDM), is not specific enough for it to be certain that the genres named are specifically in reference to the song.
• Hyphy: St. Félix is referring only to Dizzee Rascal's contribution to the song, not to the song as a whole.
• Future house: "The whole track ends up as a ... freakier future house cut." "The whole track" is understood to mean the song; Cills is explicitly calling the song future house.

Hope this helps. LifeofTau 09:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Passionfruit and Rate Your Music

First, thanks for helping with Hype genres User:Life of Tau, you've cracked understanding music genres there. Is this ([6]) a reliable source? If it is then Passionfruit is tropical house.

And what do you think of this website, Rate Your Music ([7])? In the bar on the right you can search pretty much any popular song and they give you genres that seem spot-on, although I'm sure it can't be used as a source here?--Theo Mandela (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Hi, Theo. The Times-Delphic is a student-run publication; these are not necessarily unreliable provided they have the necessary editorial oversight. However, reading The Times-Delphic's about page gives me no indication that it does. Furthermore, the article in question is in the site's opinion section, making it an opinion piece; these generally should not be used to support factual statements (including music genres). Given these two factors, I would discourage using the Times-Delphic article as a source.

The content on Rate Your Music is largely user-submitted (the contributors are listed at the bottom of each page) with little to no editorial oversight, making the site unsuitable as a source on Wikipedia (the same goes for Discogs.com). Hope this helps. LifeofTau 13:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dance-rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Keyboard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Rollin (Calvin Harris song)

Hi User:Life of Tau, I wanted to create an article for Calvin Harris' new song "Rollin", but the title has already been used for a redirect, can you help? If you can make the article, I have an RS for funk ([8]) and synth-funk ([9]). Cheers, --Theo Mandela (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: You can go directly to the page and replace the redirect template with content for the article, but be aware that it will have to satisfy the the guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY and WP:MUSICNOTABILITY for demonstrating notability — in a nutshell, by showing that there are multiple significant works (in this case most likely web articles) written specifically about the subject. You already have the Rolling Stone article, so if you can find just one more written specifically about the song that's not from the same site and cite both, you should be covered on that end. Obviously, make sure that any info in the main text is sourced. Also, make sure there is enough info to justify the existence of the article; if it ends up being only 2–3 sentences long, it's probably best to wait until there's more information out about the song. Given the artist, the page should be written using Scottish English conventions, including the DD-MM-YYYY dating format. For the first sentence I recommend something like:

"Rollin" is an upcoming song by Scottish DJ Calvin Harris featuring American rapper Future and American singer Khalid from Harris's upcoming fifth studio album Funk Wav Bounces Vol. 1.

Keep in mind that every single Calvin Harris has released so far has an article, so even if you aren't able to get one going for "Rollin", one is almost certain to be made once it's released.

Finally, the Rolling Stone article calling the song funky shouldn't be used as a source for it being funk; "funky" can simply mean "having influences or characteristics of funk music" which does not equate to the piece in question actually being funk. There's tons of electronic songs that can be described as "funky" that aren't actually within the funk genre.

Good luck with your article. LifeofTau 13:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: One more thing: once you create the article for Rollin, be sure to add it to the navboxes for Calvin Harris and Future (Khalid doesn't have one yet) and to add the templates for them to the bottom of the article as well. Also, be sure to add the [[Category:2017 songs]] template and any other applicable category templates to the bottom of the article below the aforementioned navbox templates. LifeofTau 14:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks loads User:Life of Tau, I might leave it though. The song has been released now, it peaked at #44 on the UK Singles Chart.

BTW, what do you think about this? User:Kellymoat deleted an RS for dance-pop I added on Symphony (Clean Bandit song) (maybe rightly) because it said the song "blends dance-pop with classical compositions" (my last version on that article [10]). They explained it to me here User talk:Kellymoat#Slide (Calvin Harris song) "blends", if there right the source for R&B and pop on Slide (Calvin Harris song) said it "blends R&B, pop and even elemtns of hip-hop". If you look at Heatstroke (song)'s source for funk and soul, it called it "funky" and "soulful" and the source for pop doesn't directly call the song pop, should I remove them? Thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Articles using words like "blends", "combines", or "mixes" should be examined on a case-by-case basis; most of the time, those words will keep the sentence from being definitive enough to be allowable as a genre source, but occasionally the wording can be such that the genres of the work are made clear. The Rolling Stone article about "Heatstroke" called it funky and soulful, but neither of those descriptors definitively mean the song is of either genre, which is why I removed the citations for them on the article. LifeofTau 17:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please stop leaving disingenuous edit summaries such as "per RfC consensus." Capitalization is a Manual of Style guideline not a consensus and it applies broadly. By plastering that link all over Wikipedia it appears you are attempting to re-open a can of worms which can only be construed as disruptive behavior. Piriczki (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Piriczki: I am specifically citing an RfC pertaining to the Beatles and am linking to it only in edit summaries for Beatles articles or articles for songs they have covered. Apologies that my edits have come off as disruptive. LifeofTau 12:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you are continuing to add dozens of links to this 5-year-old RfC instead of the appropriate guideline (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article)) makes your intention to draw attention to a highly contentious issue clear. If you continue the next step will be a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Piriczki (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Piriczki: With all due respect, I fail to see how an RfC pertaining specifically to the band in question being five-years-old makes it less appropriate to reference than a general guideline that isn't very definitive ("should in general not"), as I am unaware of any expiration date for consensus. I don't want to be accusatory, but the way you describe the RfC ("a can of worms", "5-year-old" "highly contentuous") makes it seem like you are simply bitter at the outcome and wish to any erase mention of it. I don't link to the RfC because I delight in causing controversy but because it is the specific decision that validates the edits I am making. Nevertheless, in the interest of mediating this dispute^? between us, I will link to the MoS guideline in the edit summaries for the few remaining Beatles articles I have left to edit. If you still wish to notify the admins, I only request that I be informed beforehand of what policy or guideline you believe I am violating. Thank you for your understanding. LifeofTau 13:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

One More Light

Can you please keep an eye on the page? 183.171.183.149 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

From what I see, all that happened was that you rightly reverted the addition of a genre that was insufficiently sourced. If the other user tries putting it back with the same source or if there's been a pattern of people attempting to add it, let me know and I'll gladly keep an eye on the page, but if not I don't see what the need is. LifeofTau 15:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Black Beatles

Hi User:Life of Tau, "Black Beatles" sounds a lot like cloud rap more than anything else (fits the description of genre perfectly), is there anyway this can be added to infobox or article? Thanks, --Theo Mandela (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Adding cloud rap as a genre requires citing a reliable source that explicitly calls the song that. I've actually been doing genre research for "Black Beatles" over the past few days (it's still ongoing), and while I've found sources for hip hop and trap, I've yet to see any calling it cloud rap. The problem with genres that are are relatively obscure is that professional journalists are usually unaware of them and thus are very unlikely to use them to describe musical works, even when the work in question seems to be a good match. If I do find a source for cloud rap, I will be sure to include it. LifeofTau 18:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

That's very true User:Life of Tau, there won't be any sources calling it cloud rap, it's more of a sub-genre than hip hop or trap that's not heard in mainstream music. Was looking at some house articles like "I Got U", where it calls it tropical house, but the term "tropical house" was very rarely used at the time, when a song like this would be called deep house, Balearic beat, what should genres be? Cheers.--Theo Mandela (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Heatstroke (song) genres

Hi User:Life of Tau, with "Heatstroke", I know "dance" is a broad term and not a genre of music, so is it ok?--Theo Mandela (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: While the term "dance" is acceptable for articles of artists whose music covers a multitude of rhythmic, uptempo genres, it's just too broad to be meaningful in song articles. It's much more useful to name specific genres when possible. LifeofTau 18:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Got it, I used that billboard source for synth-funk on "Rollin", which has an article now. I can't find any sources for "Heatstroke", I'd say it's R&B, pop-rap, nu-disco and synth-funk so I've searched under these and similar, no luck but a lot of websites call it "funky".--Theo Mandela (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Slide genres

Hi User:Life of Tau, I sourced all the genres on Slide (Calvin Harris song) myself a while back, but knowing what I know now I'm not sure whether the song is being called these genres or the production of the song is. I think nu-disco at least is right: "this song is much better than its incongruous collaborators would suggest. Harris reaches back to his Ready for the Weekend days for some breezy nu-disco (with this song). Can you please take a look at the sources and let me know if any changes to genres need to be made? Here [11], [12], thanks.

Also: do you know any other users you would say are as good at sourcing right genres as you? So I'm not bothering you. --Theo Mandela (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Wording like "blends", "combines", and "fusion" is always tricky and I recommend that text using it be examined on a case-by-case basis. In the case of the Forbes article, I don't feel the author is definitive enough in his wording, especially the "something difficult to label" part, which indicates to me that he has listed R&B and pop as influences on the song but is unable to name whatever the resultant genre is.

Off the top of my head, Dan 56 and Binksternet are pretty good editors to ask for these sorts of questions.

Apologies for how late this reply is. LifeofTau 13:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm mainly wondering if Pitchfork is explicitly calling it pop, and funk, and does FACT call it nu-disco?--Theo Mandela (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bass music#Merge of Bass music and Future bass

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bass music#Merge of Bass music and Future bass. - TheMagnificentist 17:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Instruction (song) genres

Hi User:Life of Tau, what genres is Jax Jones' Instruction (song) being called here [13], I've looked through Google Translate for translation [14].--Theo Mandela (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Unfortunately, I can't read Portuguese (Spanish is close but not close enough), and because whether an article is definitively stating the genre of a musical work depends so much on the precise wording used, online translators—which to this day are generally don't do a very satisfactory job preserving such details in translation, especially when figures of speech or poetic wording are involved—are not of much use. The article certainly uses the words samba and reggaeton, but in what way I can't definitively say. Your best bet is probably to ask an established editor fluent in Portuguese for a proper translation.

Sorry that I couldn't be of much help here. LifeofTau 13:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The genres have been left out of the infobox, and thanks anyway.--Theo Mandela (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Big room house and hardstyle

Let me unravel this, you tell me that there's both articles mention big room and hardstyle and the second mentions a song that combines both. How does it not acknowledge that 'big room hardstyle' exists? Is it because it lacks information, facts, figures or direction? I didn't drop something out of a hat, I even wouldn't say it doesn't exist, I'd put it as it's in formation. 120.147.37.23 (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

In general, to support the existence of a genre F, a fusion of genre A and genre B, the source(s) would have to:

1. Explicitly mention genre F by name

2. Convey in some way that the genre F is the result of combining genre A and genre B

In the case of "big room hardstyle", for which #2 can be inferred from just the name alone, all that is needed is for a source to give its name in a while making it clear that it's a music genre. However, neither source does this; just mentioning both big room house and hardstyle isn't enough, and neither is mentioning that a song combines them.
Hope this helps. LifeofTau 14:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Understood, I do admit that the genre is in place, artists like Headhunterz and W&W have controbuted to the genre but there are only a short number of references out there to back this information. It looks like only in time will it be taken note. 120.147.37.23 (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Funk Wav Bounces Vol.1 genre

Hi User:Life of Tau, do you know who added the genres on Funk Wav Bounces Vol.1 and if there sourced?--Theo Mandela (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Looking at the page history, it was SpongePappy who added funk and hip hop, unregistered user 31.11.230.227 who changed the former to funktronica, Dominichikaru who added R&B, and Jimmio78 who added pop; all of these unsourced genres have since been rightly removed and replaced with a sourced genre.

Just so you know, there's no need to link to my userpage every time — I get notified whenever another user leaves a message here no matter what. LifeofTau 14:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, glad to see the article now has a genre from an RS.--Theo Mandela (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Digital Girl

Hi User:Life of Tau, when you open the page Digital Girl, you will see

}} }} }}

in the first line. This is a result of your changes in the Infobox. Why do you want to see that parenthesis at the first line of the article --GünniX (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@GünniX: Thank you for pointing this out. I hadn't noticed those extra brackets when I made the edit, but I have now removed them. LifeofTau 04:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Jungle Rules and Unforgettable

Hi Life of Tau, can you help by telling me what the AllMusic review () calls Jungle Rules and "Unforgettable" please?--Theo Mandela (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Hip hop and trap for Jungle Rules; hip hop and dancehall for "Unforgettable". I can explain my reasoning for each if you'd like. LifeofTau 23:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah please Life of Tau, it might help for in the future.--Theo Mandela (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela:

Jungle Rules

• Hip hop: Yeung says that there are "18 tracks of varied hip-hop". Those 18 tracks constitute the entire album, so he is in effect calling all of Jungle Rules hip hop.
• Trap: Yeung remarks that there is a "glut of trap" on Jungle Rules, labels at least three songs as trap, and says that Travis Scott, Quavo, and Future "bring the trap" to the album. For an album to be listed as a genre, not every track has to be of that genre, but the genre needs to have a significant presence on it, and I consider Yeung's descriptions indicative of trap having a significant presence of Jungle Rules.

"Unforgettable"

• Hip hop: When Yeung calls all 18 tracks hip hop, that includes "Unforgettable".
• Dancehall: Yeung calls the song "tropical dancehall" — it's possible that "tropical" refers to tropical house (it isn't explicit enough), but the dancehall part is clear.

LifeofTau 08:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Life of Tau, would've missed trap for Jungle Rules and hip hop for "Unforgettable".--Theo Mandela (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Ways to improve Fernanfloo

Hi, I'm Steve Quinn. Life of Tau, thanks for creating Fernanfloo!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I am noticing this may not fit the notability criteria for web content. I looked for reliable sources and there really isn't much available. I'm not sure the references you have qualify as WP:RS. Thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Steve Quinn (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn: I only created the page as a redirect; it's User:Clbsfn who's attempting to make it a full article, so it's probably that person whom you should message this to. If you look at the page history you'll see that my only edits were creating the redirect back in December and adding a cn tag several hours ago. LifeofTau 05:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Remember I Told You

Hi Life of Tau, can you shed some light on what genre PopCrush (here [15]) are calling "Remember I Told You" please?--Theo Mandela (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: "House-pop" — while tropical house is in there, the adverb mildly gives away that tropical is simply an adjective describing the "house-pop". Unfortunately, PopCrush is on WikiProject Albums' list of unreliable sources, so this article shouldn't be cited. LifeofTau 08:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

On My Mind (Disciples song)

Hi Life of Tau, do you know if Capital XTRA are calling "On My Mind (Disciples song)" soulful house or house ([16])? And if their a good source for infobox genre?--Theo Mandela (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Although the site's articles never credit any writers, there is an "Online Content Editor"—who presumably overlooks articles like these—listed on the company details page, so Capital XTRA does seem to be an acceptable source. As for the genre, the song's ambiguous description can be ignored; the article's title, "The Best House Songs of 2017 So Far", is sufficient to simply list the song as house. LifeofTau 23:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

5 Seconds of Summer

Hi. Please have a look at Allmusic bio. Just to break down:

• 'Australian all-male teen pop outfit...' - teen pop band?
• '...straddles the line between '90s punk-pop and 2000s boy band pop.' - about decades

115.164.223.26 (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Aside from reading the AllMusic page, it is unclear what exactly you are requesting from me. Please restate your message to clearly indicate what you would like me to do and I will do my best to help you. LifeofTau 10:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Special Barnstar
		Hi! I just wanted to thank you for all your work on Despacito and for being active on it, I appreciate your contributions. Your restructures and rewording really improved the article. Brankestein (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Brankestein: Wow, thanks a lot! I really appreciate it. LifeofTau 06:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Nicu Alifantis

Hello, Life of Tau. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Nicu Alifantis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Dancing Astronaut

Hi Life of Tau, is this a reliable source [17]? Also do you know if it calls Funk Wav Bounces Vol. 1, or any of it's songs by specific genres please? I can't tell when it's being specific with words like "converges", thank you. 👍--Theo Mandela (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: DA is a legitimate publication with its own editorial board, so it does seem to be a reliable source. Evenson refers to the album as dance-pop in the last line of the first paragraph, but genres he names later in that sentence can be understood to be referring to individual songs or to minor styles present. Looking through the article, I would say Evenson is definitive in calling "Faking It" (contemporary) R&B and pop and "Rollin'" funk. In summary: Dance-pop for FWBV1, R&B and pop for "Faking It", and funk for "Rollin'". Hope this helps. LifeofTau 05:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for clearing it up. 👍--Theo Mandela (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable?

Hi Life of Tau, is this source [18] ok to use and what genres is it calling Heatstroke please?--Theo Mandela (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Also: Is this source [19] ok to use? Thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Hi, Theo. NPR (National Public Radio) is a long-established broadcaster and online publication that is definitely a reliable source (NPR Music, the section of the website this article is in, is on the list of recommended music sources). The article does call the song pop; however, the way it is used in the second paragraph suggests that the author is referring to the general type of music, not the specific genre. It also calls the song "pop-funk", but such hyphenated genres — nothing more than two existing genres connected with a hyphen, lacking an article of their own — are almost always contentious to include, and I don't recommend using them.

The Line of Best Fit is indeed a reliable source; it too is on the recommended list. LifeofTau 08:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll bear this in mind for future editing. I did revert edits on Feels (song), Symphony (Clean Bandit song), Don't Let Me Down (The Chainsmokers song) and Slow Hands (Niall Horan song), because they used hyphenated genres, but User:Ss112 reverted my edits, is there anyway I can remove the hyphenated genres please?--Theo Mandela (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Theo, we all have opinions on things and you don't need nor would I see why you would ask another user for permission to essentially revert, because that would imply Life of Tau owns or has control over those pages. The removal of genres from those pages will require consensus on said talk pages, because they have been accepted by the editors who have edited them and you're now going along and removing them without consensus when somebody (myself) has disagreed and reverted you. So the next step is discussion. You seem to think because one user expresses an opinion we must make Wikipedia consistent with their view; this is a strange position to take. As you may see above, Life of Tau said "I don't recommend using them"—seems to me that just says Life of Tau wouldn't use a hyphenated genre themselves. Either open a discussion on the relevant talk pages or don't, but don't continue restoring your edits. Ss112 12:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Lonely Together (Avicii song)

Hi User:Life of Tau, do you know if YourEDM is a reliable source? I know here [20] it calls "lonely Together" progressive house, but I'm confused by the way it mentions pop, is it also explicitly calling the song as whole pop please? Cheers. Theo (edits) 10:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: When the question of YourEDM's reliability was posted to the RSN and WikiProject Albums last month, the responses were inconclusive. Personally, I feel that the organizational structure and existence of an editor-in-chief shown on their "About Us" page is enough to tip the balance toward the site being a reliable source, even if not all of their writers are professionals, but if someone reverted my addition of a ref citing them, I wouldn't contest it. Regarding pop, having the genre "peppered in" is not the same as being a pop song. LifeofTau 11:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll add YourEDM source for progressive house only, thanks. Theo (edits) 16:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Club Rocker

Hi there! I maybe seemed a little unfriendly, but I saw you undone my edits over and over. Direct Lyrics is a reliable lyrics/music news online magazine managed by SpinMedia. We do know that the articles used in "Club Rocker" are written by Kevin Apaza, its chief editor. According to this, Apaza is reliable himself and the website is also "visited by around 20 million visitors each month". Maybe it isn't reliable to cite lyrics from Direct Lyrics, butwe can use music news articles. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: Hello. Based on the evidence, you've provided, I will accept that articles on the site written by Apaza can be considered reliable. It was not initially made clear that the page calling the song electropop was written by him (or had any credited author whatsoever), since this is only found by clicking to the full article. However, just because a site is owned by a major media company doesn't mean it is reliable, and neither does having a large amount of traffic. The about page gives no indication of any editorial process, so articles not written by known professional music journalists are still unreliable. In summary, Apaza articles are fine, but other pages from the site cannot automatically be considered reliable. LifeofTau 09:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad we reached an agreement. I'm sorry for all the "beef" I've created... Best of regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Feels and Faking It

Hi Life of Tau, in "Feels"' infobox how should "disco-funk" be linked? If it has to stay there, then should it be unlinked? Separately linked? Or the way it is now (in the link, it's unhyphenated before a vertical bar, and this just redirects to disco)?
Also: Do you think Rolling Stone genres here [21] can be used for "Faking It"'s infobox? Cheers Theo (edits) 13:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: I prefer linking the individual genres, but there are exceptions like "reggae-pop", a redirect to reggae fusion that should be linked in whole (disco-funk isn't one of them). Regardless, it isn't worth getting in an argument over; along with consistency and clarity for the reader, debates over linking are one of the main reasons I avoid adding hyphenated genres in the first place. As for the Rolling Stone article, the author isn't quite explicit enough in calling "Faking It" Miami bass or (1980s) pop, but the article could certainly be cited as a source for a sentence like:

Musically, "Faking It" contains elements of Miami bass and 1980s pop music.

Hope this helps. LifeofTau 05:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, there was a discussion here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force#Hybrid genres wikilinked with dashes, about hyphenated genres but it went nowhere, I won't add them in future. I'll add the Rolling Stone source to a composition section and separately link on "Feels", cheers. Theo (edits) 08:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Downtempo

Hi User:Life of Tau, here [22] Pitchfork calls "Faking It" downtempo, can this be added to the infobox as a genre. Also, how should I phrase it in the composition section please? Ta, Theo (edits) 11:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Hi User:Life of Tau, here [23] Pitchfork calls "Faking It" downtempo, can this be added to the infobox as a genre. Also, how should I phrase it in the composition section please? Ta, Theo (edits) 11:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: "Downtempo" is tricky, since it has two different meanings: one is the music genre you linked to, and the other is a general descriptor for any music (though frequently applied to electronic recordings) that has a relatively low BPM (number of beats per minute). Determining which meaning a source is using usually requires taking into account context clues and using one's own judgment, but it helps to keep in mind that the genre — which is not incredibly widespread or well known — only accounts for (by my estimate) around 10% of mentions in articles and the like, the rest being of the descriptor. The downtempo genre is rather loosely defined, but I think AIR's "Once Upon a Time" and Lemon Jelly's "Oats" are decent examples from which to get an idea of what it is like. Listening to "Faking It", the song doesn't sound too dissimilar from downtempo to rule out the Pitchfork article referring to the genre, but I would say the way the sentence is worded (having "downtempo" directly before the song title) makes it more likely than not that the author is simply using it as the aforementioned descriptor.

Hope this helps. Apologies for the delayed response.

LifeofTau 11:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries, thanks and I'll add it unlinked to composition section in a descriptive way, but not as a genre. Theo (edits) 23:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Rockstar (Post Malone song)

I was not the editor who originally added the sentence about "Rockstar" being the longest-running rap number one of 2017, however, I think the fact that it is is notable. I have restored the bit of text that noted that, leaving out the part that mentioned "Black Beatles", as I didn't think the gap since then was very long or notable. As I just noted in my edit summary, there have been 10 other number-ones on the Hot 100 this year, with at least five being hip hop songs as well. For "Rockstar" to spend the most time out of all of those was something deemed noteworthy by Billboard, and I see no reason why we can't also note that. I'm not saying everything Billboard notes in their articles is worth including on Wikipedia, and more hip hop number-ones will be increasingly common. However, it's a fragment of text and I didn't see much of a problem with it being there. If it's really not worth including to you, can it please be discussed on the talk page of the article so there's not a back-and-forth? Thanks. Ss112 17:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ss112: I am unsure as to why a single revert on my part resulted in such a message on my talk page, especially when most of what you mention was already made evident in your edit reverting me and its summary. Rest assured that I am not a belligerent edit warrior and I will respect the preference you and two other editors have to include the information. I hope any conflict amongst us has been resolved. LifeofTau 11:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Szechuan sauce listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Szechuan sauce. Since you had some involvement with the Szechuan sauce redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. C933103 (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Discogs

I wouldn't do this [24] if I were you. The annotations on the site, yes, are unreliable. But there are photos of record labels. And you can use the photos to verify all the information. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I think if you continue you will just damage a lot of articles. If you really care, find all the needed entries on the Ultratop website and replace the references. Otherwise no one will do it and someone will sooner or later delete the cover versions from the list. As a result the information (correct and encyclopedic information) will be simply lost. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: While the photographs on Discogs can contain useful information and can be sourced directly (as is done on List of songs recorded by George Harrison, for instance), the vast majority of content citing the website draws from the unreliable user-submitted text. Most of it can reliably sourced from AllMusic, but doing that isn't my responsibility; the burden is on the users wishing to have the information retained to find reliable sources for it. You can't possibly say with certainty that everything on Wikipedia cited to Discogs is "encyclopedic and correct" when the only source verifying it is a website consisting of user-submitted content. As a courtesy, I have taken it upon myself to source the information that I removed the references for on "La Mer (song)", along with some other changes. Thank you for your understanding. LifeofTau 10:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The information in "La Mer (song)" (and in a few other articles from your contributions list I've looked at) wasn't sourced from user-submitted text. There's virtually no prose on those pages at Discogs, they just reiterate the information provided on the record labels. And you can check everything by looking at the actual photos of the labels. A Wikipedia search for the words "According to the liner notes" comes with 339 hits, so it's perfectly okay to cite liner notes and album jackets. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This Is What You Came For

Hi Life of Tau, do you know exactly what genres the editors at Idolator are calling the song here [25] please? And if it should be added to the article? Cheers. Theo (edits) 19:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Also: Would you say Idolator is explicit in calling "Slide" and "Heatstroke" hip hop and "dance" here [26]? I'd rather not use dance as a genre but don't know if you can pick one and not the other. And are they explicitly calling all of "Feels" dancehall, hip hop and electronica here [27]?
Lastly, should I add the Dancing Astronaut ref ([28]) for funk to "Rollin" or not? Because it already has a ref for the subgenre synth-funk. Thanks, Theo (edits) 06:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Just wondering how I should phrase genres on these articles, let me know what you think if your not busy 👍, Theo (edits) 03:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela:

1: The only music style being used in direct reference to the song as a whole is dance, but adding it would be rather pointless since the Wikipedia article already sources EDM, a subcategory of dance music.

2: I believe the wording of "hybrid" indicates that the author is referring to both songs as both styles. There is no need to list dance as a genre for "Slide" as nu disco is already a dance genre; listing dance as a genre for "Rollin" can be acceptable if no specific dance genre has been found. (Suggested phrasing for "Heatstroke": Musically, "Heatstroke" has been described as a "hip hop/dance [hybrid]." Suggested phrasing for "Slide": "Slide" is a "sultry, piano-tipped grooving" nu-disco song that combines hip hop and dance music.)

3: I believe the wording in the third Idolator article is slightly over the line, indicating that "Feels" contains elements of dancehall, hip hop, and electronica, but not that it is of any of those styles. (Suggested phrasing: "Feels" is a ska and disco-funk song containing elements of dancehall, hip hop and electronica.)

4: See this talk page's Dancing Astronaut section from September; my view remains that its being a legitimate publication and having an editorial board indicates that the site is indeed reliable. I see no reason why funk can't be listed alongside a derivative genre in the article; such arrangements are very commonplace, as perhaps most clearly shown by the large number of hip hop articles listing the genres as Hip hop · [subgenre of hip hop]. (Suggested phrasing: Musically, "Rollin" is a synth-funk and funk song.)

Hope this helps. LifeofTau 20:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

All really helpful Life of Tau, I'll add these to articles, except I'm unsure, in the cases of "Heatstroke" and "Slide", if your saying it's ok to put the genres in their infoboxes as well as a composition section? Cheers, Theo (edits) 20:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Yes, the genres can be added to the infoboxes. LifeofTau 20:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

On it 👍 Theo (edits) 21:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Last thing, I noticed you didn't link "dance" on here, should I link it in "Heatstroke"'s infobox and what exactly is it linked to? Theo (edits) 21:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: I don't think it's necessary to link it in prose, but it should be linked in the infobox. The link would just be to dance music; this is because there are genres that fit within the common idea of modern dance music that aren't strictly EDM, such as funk and disco. LifeofTau 21:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Accolades received by "Despacito"

Hi! I was wondering if there sould be a standalone list of accolades received by the song "Despacito" because of the lenght of the table on the single's article (although the table is collapsed). Are there lists of awards and nominations dedicated to only one song or an album? I'm not talking about doing it now because it has only 20 nominations, but various music awards are going to be held during 2018 (Billboard Music Awards, Billboard Latin Music Awards, Lo Nuestro Awards, etc) and the amount of nominations is going to be notoriously increased. What do you think? Brankestein (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brankestein: Apologies for the belated reply. No, I don't think the accolades received by "Despacito" deserve their own article, and in fact I would argue for trimming down the existing list to reduce its length. The list's length does not seem to be a result of the song being exceptionally acclaimed but rather the addition of relatively trivial accolades. The articles for "El Perdedor", "Andas en Mi Cabeza", "Cheap Thrills", and "One Way or Another (Teenage Kicks)" never mention their respective Premios Juventud, Your World Awards, LOS40 Music Awards, and Nickelodeon Argentina Kids' Choice Awards wins. Removing these as well as the other Latin Kid's Choice awards will leave a list reflecting only the most relevant awards while displaying an appropriate length (I also suggest replacing the "recipients" column with a "version" column, with the primary options being "original" or "remix featuring Justin Bieber"). Since even recent musical works that were exceptionally award-winning such as 21 and To Pimp a Butterfly lack articles documenting their respective accolades, I fail to see why "Despacito" in particular should receive one. I will be leaving this reply on "Despacito"'s talk page as well so that any editors concerned will be able to see my views on this topic. LifeofTau 07:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Boogie source

A boogie with da hoodie was born in 1995, if you can google it you can most sources agree it's from 1995. I need help to know what's reliable or unacceptable. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

@Iamthemostwanted2015: Apologies for the belated reply. In general, reliable sources are established publications that are considered reputable and as such employ professional journalists and have a certain level of editorial oversight (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for further information). Good resources to consult are WP:MUSICSOURCE, which contains lists of recommended and unreliable sources for music, and the reliable sources noticeboard, where you can inquire about the reliability of a source in a given context. You can also ask me or experienced music editors such as Binksternet and Ss112 whether a given source is reliable, and we will do our best to help you. LifeofTau 17:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Life of Tau. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Lemon (N.E.R.D and Rihanna song)

Hi Life of Tau, I think, but am not sure, that Rap-Up are calling "Lemon" the music genre, bounce when they say here [29], "The hypnotic track continues the bounce that was found on the trio’s Rihanna-assisted single “Lemon.”" What do you think please? Cheers, Theo (edits) 12:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Apologies for the belated response. To me, the language used allows both interpretations — the genre and the adjective "bouncy" — to be of merit, but because of the lack of explicit wording, I would refrain from adding the genre until a more definitive source is found. LifeofTau 23:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. Theo (edits) 08:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Walk on Water

Hi User:Life of Tau, do you think I should add pop-rap and contemporary R&B to Walk on Water's infobox referencing these Refinery29 and SOHH sources? Theo (edits) 10:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC) @Life of Tau: Also: do you know if The Music is a reliable source please? Theo (edits) 20:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Apologies for the belated reply.

Refinery29: A reliable source, but "pop/rap" should be treated like a hyphenated genre; it is not necessarily the same as the genre pop-rap.

SOHH: I'm not seeing the necessary indicators of reliability from this site, but if it were found to be reliable, the article you linked does show the song to be (contemporary) R&B.

TheMusic.com.au is an excellent reliable source that I myself have cited before, such as on the indie folk article.

Hope this helps. LifeofTau 09:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Life of Tau, when you say a hyphenated genre, pop-rap hyphenated links to the genre, so how should I phrase it please? Also do you know if The National (Abu Dhabi) ([30]) is reliable when it calls "River" folk and hip hop? And lastly, for "Man's Not Hot" several sources (I'm guessing their reliable, [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]) mention grime, but some on the talk page say it's London drill or trap like it's instrumental "Let's Lurk". I agreed at first when there was only one Uproxx source calling it grime, but when several say the same thing it makes me think it should be included. What do you think? Theo (contribs) 14:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Also: do you know if The Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) is reliable? Please let me know if you get a chance, cheers. Theo (contribs) 19:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Life of Tau: Someone since removed pop-rap and the ref and added R&B unsourced, I changed it back, but do you know what the source calls "Walk on Water", if not pop-rap please? Theo (contribs) 05:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela:

"Walk on Water" and "pop-rap": The user who removed pop-rap with R&B did not do so citing not the article's text as their reason, but rather their personal opinion, which of course carries no weight on this website. That said, the source, by my interpretation, is saying that the song contains elements of both pop and hip hop—that's not necessarily the same as being pop-rap, just as rock songs can be heavily influenced by jazz without actually falling into the category of jazz-rock.

The National and "River": Being the online version of a physical newspaper is a good sign, and after some digging, I was able to come across this webpage discussing the site's position of Editor-in-Chief, which is also encouraging. Add in that an editor at RSN has said it "apparently meets the requisites to be regarded as a reliable source", and it seems you indeed have a reliable publication on your hands.

"Man's Not Hot" and grime: I could hardly believe that talk page discussion when I read it. Once again, this is a case of an editor putting their personal opinion above what is being stated by numerous reliable published sources. The reasoning that only British sources can be trusted for information about UK drill artists is absurd; that is akin to suggesting an article from the London-based Times isn't suitable as a source on zydeco. There aren't really several users making that argument anyway, just one IP editor and one registered editor who it seems needs some brushing up on Wikipedia's policies, and neither of them ever provided a reliable source that actually supports the song being drill or "UK rap". I see that you also participated in the discussion and agreed with them. That's perfectly fine, and the song could very well be drill, but we simply can't list that in the article unless a reliable source is found stating that it is. Thanks for understanding.

The Sunday Times: At first glance, this seems to be a similar case to that of The National, but further inspection shows that the website has two sections: one which reproduces stories from the physical paper (The Sunday Times), and one that publishes original online content (Times Online). While the first has been shown to employ at least one editor (the site features letters to the editor and lists the print editor's contact information at the bottom of its homepage), I could find nothing showing that this was true of Times Online. Because of this, I would say that articles from The Sunday Times are reliable sources, but ones from Times Online are not. You can tell which one an article is from because the name will be written in large print at the top of the page or, in some pages from the former, the words "Print Edition" will be visible somewhere at the top.

I am going to deal with points one and three myself. Hope this helps. LifeofTau 22:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

. A great help, thanks for taking time to look into it and clearing it up. Theo (contribs) 23:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For monitoring music articles. Keep it up! Hayman30 (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hayman30: Thank you! I'm just doing what I can to help out. LifeofTau 02:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Who vandalised this? [36]. I get that you probably just said that in the summary because there's no real reason why someone would change it when that's not what the source says, but I don't think that equates to vandalism. Ss112 22:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: My mistake. I copy-and-paste many of my most-used edit summaries and didn't think to omit the link to WP:V. LifeofTau 22:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: On closer inspection, there doesn't seem to be a mistake on my part; WP:V is a shortcut for Wikipedia:Verifiability, not Wikipedia:Vandalism. LifeofTau 23:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. Sorry, my mind's a little addled at the moment from a bunch of silly user page disputes and a whole night spent doing things! Ss112 23:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

House Music

The article supplies no instance of a house track RELEASED in the "early 1980s". The first is "On and On" (1984) - with elements, it is stated, which became "a staple" of the early house sound. The paragraph I edited began "Starting in the early 1980s".... such tracks were composed and released.

(81.131.156.109 (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC))

RE: House Music: Thank you!

This was the point I was trying to make, I'm very sorry if it wasn't clear. Thank you!

(81.131.156.109 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC))

Sky Does Minecraft listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sky Does Minecraft. Since you had some involvement with the Sky Does Minecraft redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Zoom (talk page) 17:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

MOS:ENDASH

For the same reason we don't use en dashes in article titles, scripts change en dashes to hyphens in reference titles. This is common; I'm surprised you haven't actually seen this to the extent that you would change it back because "that's what the source uses". Yes, so what? We don't use different scripts in reference titles like they're an exception; for example, if they use curly quotes, we replace these per MOS:CURLY. Hyphens should be replaced as well. MOS:ENDASH says "In all these cases, use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes, with consistency in any one article". If we're expected to keep the use of em dashes or en dashes consistent, this applies to hyphens masquerading as en dashes. Ss112 03:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: First off, have you mistakenly reversed the placement of "en dash" and "hyphen" in your first sentence? It seems that it was intended to be "For the same reason we don't use hyphens in article titles, scripts change hyphens to en dashes in reference titles." ^{If not, then that line makes little sense and contradicts the very guideline you linked as well as your own edits, and I would request clarification before continuing any discussion.} Even then, it makes little sense—hyphens are used in article titles, and nothing at WP:TITLE says they can't be. And what do you mean by "scripts change en dashes to hyphens"? As far as I can tell, this is not true, as the hyphen seems to be retained in the reference list and reference tooltip and is obviously preserved in the source code.

Getting to the main point, WP:ENDASH clearly dictates usage in article titles and text, but says nothing about usage in citations; to make the leap to it superseding original source titles is absurd. This behavior is never established in any of the places where it would be expected to mentioned, such as WP:CS, Template:Citation, or WP:CS1. WP:ENDASH is concerned with the "voice" of Wikipedia; in citations, however, the goal with regard to titles is to reproduce them as closely as reasonably possible. There are considerations, of course; titles written in sentence case get converted to title case, and so forth. However, the hyphens in the titles of music videos on YouTube (used in virtually every music video uploaded to a channel managed by a major label) are not "masquerading" as anything; they are an established stylistic convention. This is different than changing the letter case or switching from curly to straight quotes—you are substituting characters, and I can't imagine there is any benefit to the reader in misrepresenting the title simply to comply with an unrelated formatting style. (Obviously the difference is very minuscule, but you were the first to decide it warranted changing and that it needed to be taken to a talk page). Nobody would say, "Hey, that title has a hyphen where a dash should be. Why don't those dummies at Wikipedia understand punctuation?" They would understand that we are simply relaying the title in its original style, which can be easily verified by visiting the page. For the record, I do take care to comply with guidelines such as MOS:DASH in the bodies of articles; I just fail to see why they extend to titles in citations. If a policy or guideline could be found stating that they should, that would make all the difference.

Apologies that it took a day to reply. LifeofTau 04:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: Your lack of a response indicates to me that you either have no rebuttal to my points or do not wish to make one, and as such I am inclined to change the en dashes back to hyphens in the reference titles. If you are still opposed to this, please explain why I shouldn’t, while referencing my response (I have asked a question in earnest above concerning your script point and I would sincerely appreciate an answer). LifeofTau 22:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: In accordance with my above comment (I believe I have allowed ample time for a reply), I have gone ahead and made the specified change, as to my knowledge I am not violating any policy or guideline. If you choose to revert it, I would genuinely appreciate an explanation of your reasoning that addresses the points I made in my earlier response. Thank you for understanding. LifeofTau 06:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

No, this actually doesn't require a response from me. I made an objection to your assertion—you were reverted. Discuss it on the talk page, because user talk pages are not place for a consensus. Lack of a response doesn't mean "I can go ahead and restore my edits now"; see WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. It's a script that does this all over Wikipedia. It is run by Ohconfucius—look at some of their edits if you don't know what I mean. Scripts wouldn't change hyphens to en dashes if it were not proper to do so. MOS:ENDASH absolutely applies because citations are in article text. They're not separate from the prose. The guidelines apply here as well. Hyphens are not correct to put spaced between words; only non-spaced between words like how I just did with "non-spaced". These are English punctuation standards. If you really feel this strongly about arguing against two hyphens being changed to two dashes, get consensus from other users on Talk:God's Plan (song), as you just wrote two paragraphs above about it. This is done all over Wikipedia and you are the first user I have ever seen raise an objection to it because you're apparently concerned about it giving a misleading impression of a citation title? Citation titles have never been required to replicate exactly what the source page says—in most cases users do place what is written as the title of the source page, yes, but nowhere is this stated as a requirement. If this were a requirement, you might have a case. I'm not continuing an argument about this. I won't be monitoring your response here. Please take it to the article talk page before it becomes more of an edit war or disruptive back-and-forth than it already is. Ss112 06:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but there is nothing requiring us to use incorrect styling just because a source does. Either way, it's trivial because anyone would be able to find a source which styles itself "THE EXCELLENT COOKBOOK" if we used proper styling (i.e. "The Excellent Cookbook") instead. Why is there a preference for malformed titles or styles that we don't use in house? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: I would say you are correct—there does not appear to be anything requiring us to the source's styling. There is also no requirement for any article to have an infobox, but if I were to go removing all I that I could find using that reasoning, I doubt my actions would be welcomed. I find the cases of YouTube music video titles to be different from the random book cover getting creative with capitalization and colors, which to be clear I would render normally. The hyphen separator appears to be a platform-wide standard among videos uploaded by major labels. That link isn't an official page by any means, but it's telling that literally only 3 of the 100 videos compiled by that user do not use the hyphen, and I think this ubiquity allows it to transcend the status of "malformed title" into something that can be more accepted.

Is this worth a prolonged debate? Probably not, though I do keep finding myself drawn to add more thoughts on the issue. What I can say is this: if a reader is paying close attention, they may be confused as to why we use a longer line in the name when the video uses a short line. Thank you for actually engaging in the heart of the matter instead of acting like I don't know about BRD or CONSENSUS. LifeofTau 08:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Easy listening?

Hi Life of Tau, I can't tell if the music journalist here is calling Lay It All on Me (song) easy listening (the genre) but I'm certain she calls it EDM. What do you think? I also left a question at the Walk on Water section above I'm still unsure about. Thanks, Theo (contribs) 23:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: It seems the writer is using "easy listening" to describe the sound of the song, but is not explicitly calling it that genre, similarly to that downtempo issue from November. LifeofTau 22:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. Theo (contribs) 23:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Renaida Braun

You are aware of discography style, are you not? I am sure you've edited discographies before, or even discography sections. I would find it very hard to believe you don't know line breaks are used to separate a reference to below the country/chart link. It really seems like you are now finding pages to revert me on for whatever reason over something as minor as line breaks which are WP:DISCOGSTYLE. First it was hyphens, which I had to ask Koavf to explain to you, now it's this. Please familiarise yourself with generally accepted style (see basically any featured discography on Wikipedia) and stop reverting over it. Thank you. Ss112 10:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Besides, I am the one who added the reference there first: [37]. A user removing the line break who was reverted shouldn't be re-removed by another editor. Ss112 10:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: No, I do not regularly edit discography pages or sections. Despite the WP:DISCOGSTYLE page you linked containing nothing on the matter, I will take your word for it that there is an established convention to include line breaks (though I suspect it was not intended for situations in which the column width is the same regardless). But you did not cite consensus or a guideline page as your reason for reverting Jjj1238; you instead gave the bogus explanation that it "widens the column from its intended width" when that was absolutely not the case. That is why you were reverted—a failure on your part to properly justify your own edit. And yet, despite this minor conflict being the direct result of your error, you again found thought it necessary to message me here, acting like it's my fault for not understanding the accepted style and linking me to a page with a notice at the top clearly stating its guidelines are dormant and making absolutely no statement on line breaks one way or another. This isn't the first time I've called out careless mistakes on your part on this page, and it's getting tiring.

As for your "something as minor as line breaks" point, consider this: if two men are fighting in the mud, there is no room for one to criticize the other for being a mud-fighter, and if he were to do so, he would be justifiably ridiculed for his hypocrisy. In these past cases, we are obviously both concerned with dashes and line breaks, in that we have both reverted over and have posted lengthy comments on the matter. You're not the only one allowed to care about pieces of punctuation or tiny bits of markup. And finally, no, reverting a user's edit does not mean another user cannot revert your revert; you can imagine all the vandals who would ultimately get their way if that were the case. LifeofTau 10:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you got what I was saying. This is not vandalism we're talking about: it's a disagreement about style. If I've reverted somebody over their unnecessary change to style (regardless of whether my reasoning was justified—my not specifying everything in a limited edit summary is hardly some grievous error), then it should be taken to the talk page for discussion. Another user (e.g. you) coming in and going "well, no" would be like the user I reverted restoring it again—it's not more justified, and it should still be discussed (WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD). Also, you'll find I didn't say WP:DISCOGSTYLE was a policy or a guideline—it's a guide for how discographies are generally modelled (I thought you would have looked down to see the example wikitable used on the page and saw that line breaks are clearly used there). As I then said, go and check featured discographies on Wikipedia for what are considered good examples. You will find they do the same. You appear very eager to try to intellectually checkmate me about my apparent "tiring" "careless mistakes" when as far as (I care to) recall, I have only brought up two topics here recently. Both of those instances (this time being one of them) were instances where you didn't get accepted style: and yes, it absolutely is your fault "for not understanding the accepted style". It's nobody else's. I would say most people looking at these situations would come to the same conclusion: I had to ask another user to explain Wikipedia uses en dashes over hyphens to you the first time, and now you're trying to palm off your entirely unnecessary revert of me on another page you had never edited (and appeared to come across and revert me on simply because I had edited it) because of my edit summary where I used a different reason rather than not pointing out, in what I reiterate was a limited edit summary, what I thought was obvious to editors who edit music articles on Wikipedia, and that's that we place references beneath the country and/or chart name. So I didn't type out every reason in a limited summary? So what? You then find one instance where I do this and that's grounds for reverting. Jeez, you must have been scouring my contributions for that. Like, come on. You're tired of my "careless mistakes" because you typed out two whole responses I never asked for but you felt compelled to give anyway in situations where your failure to understand was the key factor in both, and you blame all that on me? I think you are out to try to prove something to me, which your replies and tone here reiterate, and I really don't care what that is. So by all means, knock yourself out, this is your talk page. Try to prove to me again this was all my fault in the end. I'm done. Ss112 18:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ss112: Wonderful, now you're accusing me of lying and conspiracy. This discussion is over. Please never message me again on my talk page about single edits I've made, even if they're reverts, whether of you or another editor. You will have to take your concerns and grievances to the relevant article talk page, where other users will easily be able to view and judge the interaction. If you do not comply, I will courteously request that you cease all editing on my talk page per WP:USER. I expect you will view this as entirely self-serving, but I genuinely believe that this will be mutually beneficial. Thank you. LifeofTau 11:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)