User talk:I like mars

Welcome![edit]

Hello, I like mars, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Math rock has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Woodroar (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Woodroar, I appriciate your insight on my posting in the Math Rock page. Your reasons for removing the contribution are entirely understandable. It is my intent to go back and edit my posting to make it more suitable to WP policies. This will involve referencing more sources, and possibly removing/adding content (from my previous submission.) I would like to note that I couldn't help but to notice the pre-existing content on that particular page appears to be of the same plague as my submission (in that it relies on incredible sources to some extent, and also unsourced statements.) I suppose that a topic such as Math Rock will not necessarily have an ample amount of official documentation from which to extract data via research, and therefore, if we are to have a Math Rock page on WP, then some compromises must be made. Again, this is just the impression that I get. I like mars (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that our article on math rock is in terrible shape. It's been tagged for additional reliable sources since September 2008, and nearly everything could be removed as unreferenced. There's still a lot of original research, which is the exact opposite of what we want. It seems like plenty of sources write about individual bands–in a few minutes of searching just now, I saw articles about Battles and Tricot in The Washington Post and The Fader, for example–but nobody really writes about the genre as a whole. In fact, the article currently has only one single source about math rock itself, which doesn't even meet our minimum requirements for an article to exist. In short, anyone could nominate this article for deletion and it probably wouldn't survive.

I guess what I'm saying is, good luck to you. I don't have the time to dedicate to hunting for sources, but I really do hope you find some. I've been here long enough to (generally) know good sources from bad–you can read about that here–so feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Or, you know, if you have any questions about Wikipedia as a whole.

Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. It is definitely a topic about which I have had significant interest since I had first seen the term used on epitonic about 16 years ago. I instantly knew what music it was describing, and finally had a term to describe it (as there was too much emo that didn't have the particular charactaristics I was enjoying about math rock music.) Is the allmusic link the source to which you refer?I like mars (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Math rock is definitely one of those "I know it when I hear it" genres, haha. But yeah, the Allmusic source is the only one specifically about math rock, and it's a short 4 sentences long, what we would call "trivial" rather than "significant". And our notability requirements call for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so basically 2 (or more) lengthy articles from respected publications (in this case, preferably music journalism). Now those sources don't only have to be about math rock, but their coverage of math rock must be significant. So an article in Spin about math rock would be great, but so would an article about Slint if it spent a couple of pages talking about the genre. I hope this helps! Woodroar (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that information is very helpful. Before editing this wiki article, I had no idea that credible, significant info about math rock was so scarce.I like mars (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]