Talk:Wave music

References used
talk &#64; TRANSviada 02:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. -- Calidum 01:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Wave music → Wave (music genre) – Due to potential confusion with New wave music and WAV the article should be disambiguated appropriately. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This goes against the usual naming convention. I don't see a huge potential for confusion. Added a hatnote. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose When searching for "wave music", all the sources I've found as listed in Wave music refer to the wave music genre, not to new wave music. Further, most, if not all, sources refer to the genre as "wave music" and none as "Wave (music genre)". When searching for "wave music" on Google the first reliable source that shows up in the first page is Wave Music: Why You Need This Genre In Your Life Right Now which is about the topic covered in Wave music, and none reliable source is found for new wave music in the same page. I've only listed 12 sources, but I can list some 8 or more sources referring to the genre as wave. As so the electronic bass music genre "wave music" is primary topic for Wave music.
 * Further, what are the reliable sources and statistics you identified in which wave music is confused with new wave music or vice-versa? WAV is not a music genre for it to be confused with wave music. So, what are the exact Wikipedia guideline sections supporting your proposition?
 * There is already Wave (disambiguation) for disambiguating articles with "wave" in their title, and there is the section Wave (disambiguation) specifically for music related articles. Editors can follow previous examples and my edit in there to further add articles with "wave" in its name there. Doing otherwise as you propose is unnecessary and will lead to actual confusion because the wave music genre is greatly referred as "wave music" both by reliable sources and in music communities, and not only as "wave". As so, it is your proposition that will lead to actual confusion and cause more harm than good.
 * talk &#64; TRANSviada 19:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

TODO Corrections and suggestions by Kareful and Fyoomz
Some prominent people in the wave scene pointed inaccuracies and made some suggestions. The inaccuracies pointed by Kareful I did fix. Fyoomz made suggestions for which it's needed to find reliable sources for referencing and adding them to the article.

[90% DONE] Kareful
"I noticed a few inaccuracies in this page, I'll highlight the ones that jumped out.
 * [won't do] I felt like it the entry should be entitled 'Wave (genre)', 'Wave Music' felt a little contrasting to how other genres are stylised on wikipedia.
 * [X] Klimeks is not London based, I'm not 100% certain if he'd want me revealing where is actually from, so I won't mention it agian.
 * [X] Plastician has never owned a club, although he ran a club night at Phonox in London named 'Survey London', which featured artists such as myself, Skit and other Uk based and european wave producers.
 * [X] Wavemob never organised any official parties,
 * [ ] but artists such as Skit & I did throw some parties in London under his yusoul label
 * [ ] and later we (liquid ritual team) threw parties under 'Liquid Ritual', we worked alongside the Vice owned clubs to throw semi regular events for a couple years, until their closing."

[50% DONE] Fyoomz
"It's perhaps important to add these points to the article.
 * [ ] In 2012, Klimeks released his remix of 'Wake You' by IAm1, and tagged it as 'wave.'
 * [X] Plastician played out wave music for years on his Rinse.fm show which went on to become the longest running show on that channel and gained a good deal of notoriety.
 * [ ] Many artists met each other in the comments of his rinse.fm podcasts before meeting in real life.
 * [ ] 2015 was perhaps THE formative year for Wave,
 * [ ] with the creation of the Wavemob collective, (the all-star squad of artists making the sound at the time)
 * [X] and Plastician's 'Wave Pool XXMV' mix.
 * [won't do unless establish notability] In 2015 (actually 2016), Plastician began to release Wave artists on his Terrorhythm staple, beginning with 'Nights Edge' by Noah B, and continuing with 'Night Wonder' by Deadcrow, and the iconic 'Worlds Away EP' by Sorsari.
 * [ ] Two big live events that year outside of the UK were 'Kodxinva' and 'Czeluść Festival,' began playing the sound in 2015.
 * [X] In 2016, Kareful dropped the first full length wave album on Trapdoor Records.
 * [X] In 2016, Wave001 from Wavemob dropped.
 * [X] Liquid Ritual began releasing records
 * [ ] and started their radio show in 2017.
 * [ ] vibe.digital's radio show also started in 2017 and began releasing records in 2018.
 * [ ] For the 2019 'Year In Review,' Spotify recognized Wave as a sub-genre of electronic music. However, wave still is not searchable, nor does Wave have it's own playlisting or genre distinction outside the scene's own independent playlists.
 * [ ] In 2021, Beatport supported the creation of wave as an official new genre on their platform. 'Trap / Wave' is now where you find the sound.
 * [ ] Not sure if you want to get into more recent live music stuff, but you'd probably want to cover
 * [ ] tours that the LR boys did,
 * [ ] along with the first wave USA tour from Deadcrow in 2018
 * [ ] and the formation of vibe.digital Agency.
 * [ ] Then the Arcadia festival in Russia in 2020,
 * [ ] and Plastician's tours in the USA starting in 2017, and continuing in 2018, and 2019."

talk &#64; TRANSviada 16:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

template fanpov
FANPOV is not a Wikipedia guideline but just an essay and thus unnecessary to keep that template in the article. Also that no one's explained where is the fanpov in the article. I have not removed it yet because I want the article to have high standards and the template seems to encourage that, as so I'll keep it for now but might remove in the near future if nobody does anything to clean any alleged FANPOV.

talk &#64; TRANSviada 22:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll likely be removing the template following . This will be in a range of 1 to 10 days, unless it is presented objective reasons to keep it.
 * talk &#64; TRANSviada 16:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * removed
 * talk &#64; TRANSviada 21:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

DONE Visual art characteristics
talk &#64; TRANSviada 03:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Add to Characteristics the visual aspects of Wave.
 * Interesting to exemplify with wave artists who are both producers and visual artists such as Jessaudrey and Klimeks.
 * The thesis has an entire section dedicated to this, which will shall be used for referencing.

edits by Paracelsus888 and renaming of the criticism section to "Reception"
made a very positive edit and copyedit of the article that I believe to have cleared any possible fanpov, making it more neutral. There are some details removed that may benefit being reincluded to contextualize the lead section, mainly about the million of plays/views from the criticism section. This also makes me think that section should be renamed to "Reception" and include more viewpoints from the press, as to make that more neutral.

talk &#64; TRANSviada 21:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm not acquainted with the subject, so it's entirely possible I made over-enthusiastic edits and you should absolutely feel free to add things back in. Changing the "criticism section" to "reception", and broadening it, would definitely be a good next step. Thanks for all your excellent work on this article! --Paracelsus888 (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your feedback. Thanks for having improved the article and kind words!
 * talk &#64; TRANSviada 16:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles to get inspiration from
Mainly on the writing, outline.
 * Vaporwave: also an internet phenomenon. It was nominated Good Article.
 * Progressive rock: the reception section instead instead of "Criticism" as of now how it is on Wave music.

talk &#64; TRANSviada 21:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

TODO add pages to jung-2019-takingwaveoffline
Since is a thesis with 15 pages, it is needed to add the respective referenced pages using Template:rp.

talk &#64; TRANSviada 16:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Usage of
removed and the statement of wave's addition to Beatport from the article claiming it is WP:PROMOTION. I reverted since there was no consensus for this destructive edit and is not WP:PROMOTION because talk &#64; TRANSviada 06:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) the article is on Beatport news portal (which is not their store) and it's mostly covering the wave genre (it's analogue to Bandcamp Daily), hence the source was also used for referencing other than the genre's addition to Beatport's store (and you removed the source for all the statements without previously discussing it).
 * 2) Two other sources were provided for the statement of wave's addition to Beatport's store.
 * 3) The addition of wave to Beatport's store is a historic mark of the genre's recognition in the music industry.


 * Beatport is a commercial entity - a company - and Beatportal is their means of promoting music is sells, so it's not news, it's advertising, meaning this is very much not an independent source. See WP:IS. Same applies to Bandcamp.
 * Any statement on the inclusion of the genre descriptor by Beatport needs to be sourced to a reliable secondary source. Acousmana 12:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the case for Beatportal being biased here. It's clearly in their interests to promote Wave, so we could reasonably avoid citing them for descriptions of wave's popularity or quality, but I don't see how Beatportal is biased in reference to the stylistic conventions of Wave, such as the link to dark garage or the prevelance of neon lights. Insofar as Beatportal is merely describing Wave - and this, as far as I can tell, is what it's being cited for - there is no reason to believe it's biased. --Paracelsus888 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Beatport/Beatportal asserting the "stylistic conventions" of 'wave' is problematic with respect to them needing a category to lump said music into so they can sell it, not sure how you can claim they are an independent source when they very clearly benefit commercially from sale of music they are attempting to "define." We have better sources, stick to them instead. Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 13:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You reverted without consensus. And this is beyond because there were two other sources you also removed about the addition of wave to Beatport store (so you have to argue about them too). This is problematic.  is an independent and reliable source for all statements other than the addition of wave to the Beatport store. If the source is to be removed, it should be only for this latter statement. For this statement 2 other sources were provided, and you also removed them without any explanation. The only argument made by you that could apply to WP:PROMOTION is Beatport store being a commercial company. But as already discussed, the source itself is mostly about the wave genre. There is nothing in WP:PROMOTION that supports your comment on how problematic is "Beatport/Beatportal asserting the "stylistic conventions" of 'wave' [...]". If you're gonna further argue about this, please argue while providing the specific quotes from that guideline.
 * talk &#64; TRANSviada 16:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * per WP:IS
 * "Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?"
 * clearly the latter as it has a vested interest in publicizing the genre
 * "Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic."
 * Further, per WP:COISOURCE
 * "Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting."
 * Beatport is a company that sells music, part of this process involves categorization - they create "identifiable" categories so its customers can distinguish among the various products it sells - and it uses Beatportal to further promote its definitions so it can sell that music. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 17:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for detailing. The problem is that I see degrees of separation, while the quotes and arguments you provided is as if everything or nothing. The source is mostly documenting the wave genre and scene. They created the category on their store from a real world concept (not the other way around), and the article mostly describes the real world concept (inclusive documenting the viewpoints of prominent entities from the wave scene) rather than the category on their store (i.e. the product they're trying to sell). So while I understand they have vested interested for the products categorized on their store and the source shall be removed for this statement, I disagree on removing the source for statements documenting the genre (which in Wave music was minimum and objective). Although I'm also aware companies use this as a marketing strategy for promoting their brands and SEO ranks, I do still see objective and unbiased values added. Since WP:IS seemingly isn't specific about these differences, I'll likely take it to the noticeboard. No idea when.
 * You didn't provided a reason on why you removed the statement of wave's category addition to Beatport and its inline independent references and.
 * talk &#64; TRANSviada 21:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * re:Beatport it's quite clear, it's not a grey area like 'music PR' sources - glorified press releases that turn up on various 'notable' webzines etc. - the commercial interest aspect is prominent.
 * the other removals, this, is WP:BLOG, so poor, avoid.
 * this, an "artist services agency"? not WP:RS for obvious reasons. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 22:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll agree with you. My current opinion is to ban beatportal from being used in Wave music. talk  &#64;TRANSviada  21:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Usage of
removed arguing it is not WP:RS because it is an "undergrad dissertation". I reverted because there was no consensus and no specifics in WP:RS were given why the source fails it (WP:RS does not states that a source is not reliable because it is an "undergrad dissertation"). Please, detail in which points the source fails WP:RS. talk &#64; TRANSviada 06:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, note peer review is a general requirement, you'd have to make a strong case to include a PhD thesis, never mind an undergrad one. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 12:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for specifying. Since it was secondary and published on CalArts website I thought it could be reliable. But as there is no way to find if the source was peer reviewed, I won't argue about this. talk &#64; TRANSviada  17:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * consult the citations/references used in the thesis, and if WP:RS utilize them in the article. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 17:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing and verifiability issues on the article
The current state of the article is troublesome. This is due to These issues need to be fixed. Further, it is needed special care when selecting sources for wave because entities from the scene actively use service/promotion agencies for getting featured in e.g. an article. Since wave's popularity is growing, it is problematic the use of unreliable sources because of circular reporting.
 * Removal of (see ) which was extensively used for writing Wave. Thus now there are many issues of Verifiability.
 * Some sources used in the article are arguably unreliable. See Reliable sources/Noticeboard
 * vinylised: unreliable.
 * futuremagmusic.org: unreliable as secondary+ source. but may be "useful as a primary source for uncontroversial statements about artists they promote such as release dates and tour dates".
 * theplayground.co.uk: same as futuremag.org
 * daily.bandcamp.com: can be used for history and characteristics. Arguably, it should not be used for establishing notability and for giving examples of artists.

I am not in a position right now to be fixing all that. Also, I believe this article has high risks of getting edits that are problematic either in good faith or vandalism.

talk &#64;TRANSviada  11:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * tidied it up a bit, toned down hyperbole, addressed some issues with musicological terminology, some of which were unclear or simply made no sense.<b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 18:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you very much for your hard work on improving the article! It is way better now. I'm just not too sure about the order of the sections because I originally wanted to make it like Vaporwave. talk  &#64;TRANSviada  21:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)