Talk:Hardvapour

Who made this haha

Who — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.173.104 (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After three weeks, no consensus was reached on whether to merge or not. Disagreement centred on whether four articles is enough to demonstrate notability and whether Hardvapour is independent of Vaporwave. EdwardH (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Two closely related micro-genres of limited notability. I propose that Hardvapour be merged into Vaporwave. The content in Hardvapour can easily be explained in the context of Vaporwave, and the latter article is of a reasonable size that merging will not cause article size or undue weight issues. Acousmana (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose "Limited notability" is not a sufficient reason for merger.

WP:MERGEREASON: Merging should be avoided if: ... The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short.

Not only do the two articles have little WP:OVERLAP, but Hardvapour is nearly twice the size of Vaporwave. A merge would effectively make Vaporwave an article more about hardvapour than vaporwave itself, creating WP:COATRACK issues. Plus there doesn't even appear to be much stylistic similarity between the two genres - it seems about as related as synthwave or hypnagogic pop, and both of their articles are shorter than hardvapour.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose and close nomination Your saying that Vaporwave and Hardvapour are "two closely related micro-genres of limited notability" is obviously a bunch of dogshit. Multiple independent publications, and this Wikipedia article, have covered that this is a very different genre from and the opposite of vaporwave in almost every way! Both articles, while not as long as the article about Donald Trump, are still much more just than stub length, and there isn't a lot of info about hardvapour on the Vaporwave page as of writing this, so any sort of WP:OVERLAP and WP:COATRACK argument against the Hardvapour article should immediately be check marked completely false. There's tons of information and worthy analysis from publications that are not in the vaporwave article. There's clearly significant major coverage about this topic in very reliable and independent sources Dazed magazine, Bandcamp Daily, Thump, and Spiegel Online as cited in the article, not to mention there have been articles in various American and European magazines and online independent publications about Hardvapour and its releases: XFDR magazine, this other Hardvapour article on THUMP, Paper magazine, this other THUMP article, [Tiu magazine, Fact magazine, Syg, [http:www.electronicbeats.net/the-feed/hardvapour-internets-newest-micro-microgenre/ Electronic Beats], Tiny Mix Tapes and Loud magazine. This merge nomination is a bunch of nonsense and should be closed immediately! I'm absolutely getting sick of crap Wikipedia users requesting merge of and deletion of obviously non-stub length articles of very notable subjects! This bullcrap has to stop! editorEهեইдအ😎 22:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

"is obviously a bunch of dogshit," "crap Wikipedia users," nice, I'll file this with your, "Um, so fucking cite it?" - given enough rope etc. Acousmana (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Could be condensed into a section on the vaporwave page, as it has limitied independent coverage. Aleccat 19:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I have given enough evidence in this nomination that the coverage for this genre is much more than just "limited." This statement is completely false. editorEهեইдအ😎 21:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment To reiterate my previous point, here are the two articles' readable prose size (as of now)

• Vaporwave: ~9.4kb
• Hardvapour: ~6.3kb

We merge/split articles based on the size of their contents and the amount of subject overlap, not on its level of notability or independent coverage. WP:COATRACK occurs when an article dives excessively into the intricacies of a topic that is only tangentially related. "Hardvapour" is to "vaporwave" what "post-punk" is to "punk rock", or even "vaporwave" to "hypnagogic pop". Look at the "stylistic origins" located at Vaporwave and Hardvapour sand then read this excerpt from Dazed:

Like post-punk, neo-Expressionism, or New Labour, ‘hardvapour’ defines itself in opposition to a preceding movement. If vaporwave (the Tumblr-beloved microgenre of pitch-shifted lounge music that sounds like a chopped-and-screwed mix of the Windows 95 start-up tone) sounds like glossy mall muzak transmitted from a futuristic virtual plaza, then hardvapour sees that plaza hijacked by a group of Balkan cyberpunks, hacking into the tannoy and blasting out gabber as they throw shapes in the strobelight.

We have 4 independent sources discussing "hardvapour" and 45 discussing "vaporwave". And yet, a merge would have 2/3 of the Vaporwave article talking about "Not Vaporwave". Consider WP:UNDUE (emphasis added):

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources

Match with WP:SPINOFF

Articles where individual sections create an undue weight problem ... [are one situation] where spinoff subarticles become necessary, and, when done properly, they create the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible.

TL;DR: "limited independent coverage" is a reason to keep the articles separated, not merged.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unfounded accusations of disruption and vandalism to try and halt contructive editing

It seems constructive encyclopaedic editing of this page results in unwarranted accusations of "disruption" and vandalism. Editor assumes they have the authority to undo edits because they created the article. There are clear errors in the article, and it's riddled with WP:OR. Acousmana (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No it is not. I'm sorry, but your comphrehension skills are the problem, and I can verify that since I've read the articles a lot more than you have. Want some examples?

"Publications such as THUMP, the British magazine Dazed and the German news website Spiegel Online have called Hardvapour strange and exciting new genre"

• Dazed: "hardvapour is genuinely exciting music."
• THUMP: "Keep digging and you'll find that there are no objective answers—just a lot of producers online churning out album after album of some of the strangest, most exhilarating music happening right now"
• Spiegel: "The most exciting, most heated, controversial sound that pop has produced this season."

• uses a similar type of ambient atmosphere":

Dazed: "Hardvapour tracks typically explore the dissonance between the ambient sheen of vaporwave and the relentless thump of gabber."

"being devoid of samples"

Dazed: “It’s a complete antithesis to what vaporwave originally set out to be: fast music, non-sampled work,"

"throws post-apocalyptic raves in defiance of dystopia."

Dazed: "throws post-apocalyptic raves in defiance of dystopia". The cited source did say it, you just failed to find it!

And I have a fair more to go. I could keep reverting you stupid fucking edits, but then my ass would be blocked. Seriously though, there's no fucking original research. It's pissing me off that your crappy comprehension skills are leading you to come to this conclusion. This is perfect verification that you are not the one to alter this article in any way imaginable! I'm getting sick of your stupid nonsense. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

edits like this demonstrate that you know exactly what the problem is. Be objective, don't take things so personally. Acousmana (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Additional RS sources required

More diverse range of sources needed, right now there are 4 used for the entire article. One is cited 15 times, another 10 times, the remaining two, 4 cites each. Acousmana (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for a moderately-sized article to rely on just a few sources. {{Refimprove}} is for articles with unverified claims, and everything here is verifiable. The only time more "diverse" sources are required is when we run into problems of "systemic bias", which I'm not sure appear in this article (see Category:Neutrality templates).

The article could be beefed up by having more discussion on what the hell "distroid" is. Adam Trainer and Adam Harper talk about it as an "anti-vaporwave" genre, and there's already one reference linking it to hardvapour.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

well, when there are 15 cites attributable to a single source, and only 4 reference in total, that's a form "systemic bias" in favour of single POV, hence the need for a wider range of sources. Acousmana (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I accept on what Acousmana is saying, this is an inordinate article. 120.147.37.23 (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• What's the argument here? Many because a source has so much info on the subject and other sources repeat general summaries of what.... Wait, why am I still trying to deal with Acous here, he's just not gonna take what I'm trying to proof to him. This is why editing Wikipedia articles can be such an annoying hell. *sighs* Thankfully, though, I have other articles to work on, so I can just leave this behind. editorEهեইдအ😎 19:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)