Talk:Futurepop

Reverts
To the IP editor who keeps moving the content from the EBM article to this one: Please see Articles for deletion/Futurepop. A consensus was reached in that discussion that "Futurepop" is not sufficiently notable for Wikpedia (notability here defined as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources). However, because the term bears some mentioning in relation to EBM and VNV Nation, it was decided that the best place for information about it was in the EBM article, to the extent that it can be reliably sourced. Please do not move the content to this article again based on your own personal opinion that it "has a shit to do with EBM". Instead, if you believe the topic is notable enough to stand alone, please take the opportunity to research reliable sources in order to make it meet Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. If you wish, you may register an account and work on the article in your own userspace, then move it here when you have added sufficient sources to it. Articles that have been deleted should not be re-created without substantial improvement, and the version you are continually placing here is of even lesser encyclopedic quality than the previously deleted version. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The relation between EBM and Futurepop is YOUR OPINION. Stop that trash. EBM is a completely other genre! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.9.0 (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not my opinion. I have no interested in either EBM or Futurepop, or electronic music in general, and no real opinion about their relationship as music genres. I have never contributed to either article except for nominating Futurepop for AfD and to revert your disruptive edits. The relation between EBM and Futurepop was discussed at the AfD linked above, and a community consensus between a number of editors determined the fate of the article and the appropriate place for the information on Wikipedia. Consensus is how decisions on Wikipedia are made; they are not made by one editor such as yourself continually edit warring to push your own opinion on the topic. Please discuss the topic here first and allow a consensus to form before reverting to your preferred article versions again. Also see WP:3RR; if you continue to revert based solely on your own point of view, then your IPs may be blocked from editing and the articles may even be protected to prevent you from editing them. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole AfD is completely crap. Futurepop has 14 (!!!) interwikis. There are also books that describes the style. Furthermore the new article is not identical to the deleted article. So please, give that style its own article and there is no problem anymore.
 * "to push your own opinion on the topic."
 * Like the editors of the EBM article? It's absolutely the same. They push their EBM=Futurepop opinion on the topic. There was never a Futurepop section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.18.167 (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole AfD is completely crap.
 * You opinion notwithstanding, consensus is how Wikipedia works.
 * Futurepop has 14 (!!!) interwikis
 * Irrelevant. That does nothing to address the article's complete lack of sources, or any of the other reasons it was deleted.
 * There are also books that describes the style.
 * Then surely you wouldn't mind using some of them to source the article? If you've got the sources, fix it.
 * Furthermore the new article is not identical to the deleted article.
 * No, it's worse. And how would you know, anyway? You're not able to view the deleted version. Only admins can do that. I'm not an admin; I just remember what it looked like before.
 * So please, give that style its own article and there is no problem anymore.
 * Again, not how Wikipedia works. Topics have to demonstrate their own notability through secondary source coverage.
 * There was never a Futurepop section.
 * Sure there was. There's been a Futurepop section in the EBM article for the last 7 months. You know that because you keep removing it from that article and moving it here.
 * Please stop edit-warring on this topic. I have already requested for the articles to be protected from your disruptive edits. When you get right down to it the Futurepop section could simply be removed from the EBM article outright on the basis of being entirely unsourced; it shouldn't be used to create a separate article on the topic unless the information can be significantly expanded and properly sourced. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically, 94.134.x.x is right in saying that Future Pop is not a subgenre of EBM. There may be influences from EBM, but Future Pop is also a relative to Synthpop, Electro-industrial, Techno and Trance. It's also wrong that the term was used only for VNV Nation, like claimed in the AfD. References are available. The Book by Schmidt/Neumann-Braun (generally considered one of the best german-language books about the "Schwarze Szene") contains a description of future pop, mentioning several artists. There are many other references, such as the article from Side-Line magazine. If more is needed, I can also provide links to german-language reviews from magazines like the "Sonic Seducer", in which artists other than VNV Nation are entitled Future Pop.
 * There are some other things I have to say regarding 94.134.x.x, a german guy who also contributes to de.wikipedia: His work is usually primarly based on his personal opinions. Sometimes he doesn't cite references at all, and when he does, the references sometimes give statements very different from his ones. For example, he claimed that Liisa Ladouceurs book connected Future Pop and Uplifting Trance, which it doesn't. Those, who work on articles about dark music regularly, should keep in mind that contributions by 94.134.x.x need to be checked carefully. --Theghaz (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No book uses the term Uplifting Trance. That's a fact. Encyclopaedia Gothica says clearly  trancey ! Wash your eyes, Mr. Know-it-all.


 * His work is usually primarly based on his personal opinions.


 * That's a fucking lie, obviously calumny. You don't know my edits at all. But if you need an enemy, no problem.


 * the references sometimes give statements very different from his ones.


 * Just your opinion. And just another lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.67.118 (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Throwing in my two cents, it's a keep-able article, and while I don't agree that EBM is completely different, Futurepop, directly as an EBM genre isn't true either. It's like a fusion of multiple electronic genres than associations directly towards EBM, whilst seemingly lost its purpose as the genre got older using various other electronic elements, would still be incorrect. I'm very knowledgeable on this style of music with 48 albums that can be considered futurepop and years of experience in goth/cybergoth/industrial subculture though unfortunately "legit" sources do lack a bit. F-22 Raptör Aces High ♠ 23:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Books
There are different books that describe Futurepop as a separate genre. The deletion is not sustainable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.23.142 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

On the name itself
good luck with this page and this genre name, no genre or subgenre that's had "future" in its name has ever kept it permanently as far as music history is concerned. rightly so, because trying to make the term 'future' stick as time is constantly passing is a fool's errand. any usage of "future" is some self-conscious garbage just like adding "intelligent" to "intelligent dance music", unfortunately that one stuck, try not to help this one stick too. "hey jimmy, let's listen to some of these futurepop records from the 2010's!" - someone in 2020, where other stupid genre names like "post future pop" already exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.62.153 (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

'no genre or subgenre that's had "future" in its name has ever kept it permanently as far as music history is concerned' Future garage is a pretty obvious counterexample Jokullmusic 07:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokullmusic (talk • contribs)