User talk:DJ Alla Dean

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Incorrect moving

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you harm Wikipedia. Hi, just letting you know that you are breaking wikipedia's rule on moving articles Juke music + Footwork (genre) and your actions are likely to be rolled back: WP:BEFOREMOVING. Also, you don't seem to really understand the difference between juke and footwork, and are combining sources for two different genres into one article, just nullifying the existence of the two terms. A lot of sources that talk exclusively about footwork you attribute to the juke, which just crosses out all the work you do. Solidest (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hello. The discussion page on ghetto house suggested that juke be moved to a separate article for many years. The juke and footwork articles described the same sound pioneered by RP Boo and typified by "Bangs and Works" on Planet Mu. Discogs all lists Juke and footwork as "Juke". Most Google hits come to not distinguish juke and footwork. They may have had different meaning in the beginning, which I do not disagree they did (and it should be reflected in Juke music), but right now they describe the same music. I underline, this is generally reflected in the sources and general usage of the term, so let's work to improve the merging work, not rolling all back to have two separate articles describing the same genre. -- DJ Alla Dean (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you looked but:

https://www.discogs.com/style/footwork vs https://www.discogs.com/style/juke

https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/footwork/ vs https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/juke/

https://musicbrainz.org/genre/405b97cf-e1d9-48aa-97cd-53212730589c vs https://beta.musicbrainz.org/genre/36cdb9a1-a19e-4c8f-a887-c451e71cca46

And I'm stating what is already present in the sources in the article. They always point to different genres and describing characteristics for a specific genre, not something called "juke/footwork". They just say that footwork evolved out of juke, not the way you describe it as "the same music". And in general the situation is completely the opposite of what you wrote. For a long time these terms were used as a single category, as evidenced for example by https://www.allmusic.com/style/juke-footwork-ma0000013543 , which hasn't been edited for over 10-15 years, but with the development of streaming services this has changed and the genres have been separated. Juke remains focused on 4/4, while footwork completely ignores the standard house beat and its rhythm section is based on sub-bass. Solidest (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree, however the footwork music is also called juke music and there are multiple sources saying that (one of them being RedBull's primer on Footwork/juke). "Juke house" as they call it, seems to be a local term in Chicago used to describe fast ghetto house right before RP Boo came. However, the subarticle on ghetto house, describing juke, was exactly describing footwork. Word by word. Points being:

Juke and footwork both were pioneered by RP Boo
Both are introduced to Europ with Bangs and Works. Bangs and Works is undoubtedly the primer on the genre.
Both are accompanied by footwork genre
Sonically, well if you listen to footwork, sources are out there too, many footwork tracks switch between 4/4 back and forth, they are not typified by 4/4 or the lack of it. Like, "Space Juke" by Rashad and Spinn. More typical of the genre is frenetic syncompated sampling, which also agrees with sources.

So let's discuss further. Like, what is the clear sonically distinct different between Juke and Footwork, as supported by sources? -- DJ Alla Dean (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time or inclination to waste it on another wiki debate. You broke the rule on moving articles in the first place, and in my experience, the patrolling members are likely to roll back your work, despite any arguments. Solidest (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should discuss since sources seem to contradict each other.

So what is your point. How should the articles be structured? Ghetto house with a subgenre "juke house" in it? And a separate "footwork" article? But "footwork" is also called "juke" (redbull's primer, and I will add many more sources). How do we go about that? Why is that footcrab song "juke" on discogs? Why "Space Juke" is called "Space Juke" when it's sonically (according to your definition) footwork but still has 4/4 sections? -- DJ Alla Dean (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to your own rym source on juke:

“

The genre also has its own dance style, footwork, which is sometimes used as an AKA for the music.

”

Moreof, this source lists Rashad, Spinn, RP Boo and the like being "juke" producers. However "Bangs and Works" list them as "footwork" producers.

Moreof, the rym definition of "juke" seems to contradict what you said about 4/4:

“

Juke is faster than ghetto house, playing at 160bpm, and makes striking use of unconventional drum patterns which differ wildly from other house styles.

”

-- DJ Alla Dean (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a consensus, for now, til the sources are all well-structured, I am moving the content back to "Footwork (genre)" and redirecting juke to Chicago ghetto house DJ Alla Dean (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As of now I moved all back. I would say you are going to need good sources to back up that "juke" is strictly 4/4. Backing that should obviously happen in Ghetto house subsection as Footwork/juke is a different article. But you are wrong: just listen to "Baby Come on" by RP Boo, "Footcrab" by Addisson Groove, "Space Juke" by Rashad and Spinn (all of those are described as seminal juke tracks in sources) and find out where steady 4/4 is present in at least one of them. The whole situation is markedly similar to Jungle/Dnb debate, where die-hard Jungle fans are ripping 'emselves to set themselves apart from Dnb when it is in reality a continuation of the same exact scene which (the same as with footwork/juke and juke) at one moment underwent a rather radical shift within the scene. -- DJ Alla Dean (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short answers to what you asked:

1. "Ghetto house with a subgenre "juke house"" - Yes. Or make two separate articles, if there's enough content for them. Or keep separate Juke article and add a distinct paragraph for Footwork. Just don't say it's the same thing, given that even on wikidata the two genres are separate: footwork (Q5466607), juke (Q24885387). It would be very awkward to add "juke/footwork" in there.

2. The Redbull article specifically describes the history of these two styles, even though it says "AKA" at the beginning. It gives characteristics of Juke and then describes how Footwork emerged from it with its own characteristics.

3. On Discogs ordinary people put genres on releases. You can change it to Footwork if you feel so.

4. Track titles are not reliable sources. And there are a huge number of such cases.

5. Producers do not work exclusively in one genre. RP Boo was a pioneer of the two genres, 10 years apart.

6. The point is that Juke is still a house music despite non-standard patterns, while footwork is not. Solidest (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RoseCherry64 discussion

I reverted the redirects and content moving. Since this is disputed by at least one editor, see WP:MERGEPROP for the proper proceedings of starting a merge discussion. It would be best to have this discussion on an article talk page where other editors can see it. RoseCherry64 (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why you reverted the last edit of mine? I have exactly moved Footwork article back to footwork, but it has already undergone structuring, got additional sources (RedBull and Brar's book) and you removed them all altogether. Please take time to see what you reverted, basically I reverted everything myself and moved back my work to Footwork (genre) where I started, and you just reverted everything I have myself reverted without a slightest glance. -- DJ Alla Dean (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it seems to be identical with these revisions of except for minor changes to the lead paragraph. Footwork (genre) and Juke music. And the juke music page was redirected into footwork without consensus. Please look how to create an actual merge proposal, because having one article for both juke and footwork is disputed by another editor. RoseCherry64 (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the whole discussion with Solidest you are yourself referring to. We quickly reached a consensus:

1. I am not touching Juke house section in Ghetto house article. Leaving it be cause it is not my primary concern.

2. Footwork AKA Juke (Footwork/juke) is what I am going to edit now.

3. I have outlined the aforementioned discussion with Solidest in the Footwork article talk page as you requested

4. I will need to bring structure ("History", "International growth" and "Dance" sections) along with the additional sources back into article. That's a peculiar thing and is NOT merger in any sense -- DJ Alla Dean (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I seem to understand what you cannot understand because of rather confusing chaotic editing I have started. The sequence of actions I've done was this:

1. I deleted all content from 'Footwork (genre)' and moved all content to 'Juke music'

2. I set redirect from 'Footwork (genre)' to 'Juke music'

3. I made some editing.

4. Solidest messaged me and we had a conversation

5. I moved contents of 'Footwork (genre)' back to 'Juke music'

6. I redirected 'Juke music' to 'Ghetto house#Chicago juke', where it was pointing to before I started any editing

7. You reverted 5.

You were right to intervene, but a bit late cause I have already reverted everything we discussed with Solidest myself and that's how you reverted the wrong thing. -- DJ Alla Dean (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, yes I misunderstood what your edits were supposed to do. Sorry. RoseCherry64 (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Footwork (genre), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alcohol and Fukushima disaster. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]