Talk:Afro/cosmic music

message: Is the title "Afro/Cosmic music" OK? I didn't think it was fair to choose a name that favors only Loda or Baldelli, and there didn't seem to be a better term. If anyone has a better suggestion, though, be my guest. —mjb 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title OK?

message: Greetings, Afro/Cosmic enthusiasts. I've started this article based on a handful of interviews on Web sites, as found in some quick Google searches. We need more journalistic references, though, in order to ensure the article's longevity.
Please help improve the article any way you can. You don't have to try to make it be the most comprehensive collection of information about the scene ever assembled; it just needs to paraphrase, summarize, and point to all of that information as documented elsewhere, as per Wikipedia policies. So be sure to provide references for any info that can possibly be debated. The more places where we can point to for confirmation, the better.
If you're new to Wikipedia, create an account before you edit and make sure you're logged in, then take a look at the verifiability policy and the 'no original research' policy, which basically means you can't provide firsthand information or anything that can't be read about elsewhere. For your writing style, avoid hyperbole and "peacock terms", which means words like "legendary" and "influential" are taboo; just write like a skeptical journalist, as if you're writing for a respectable publication that librarians will want to archive.
Ask any questions here. Thanks! —mjb 21:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More references needed

message: It was just pointed out to me today that someone already created a Cosmic Disco article 4 months before I created this one. The articles are about the same topic, so obviously a merge is in order, and I've just tagged both articles with merge templates.
The content shouldn't be too hard to merge. My main question is where should the article live? That is, what should its title be?
Because the topic is referred to in print as both "Afro" and "Cosmic" and combinations thereof, I feel my article's title ("Afro/Cosmic music") is the better option. I don't want to favor Baldelli's term ("Cosmic" or "Cosmic Disco") when music journalists are using Loda's ("Afro") as well; and in general I want to present the myriad of terms as neutrally as possible. The article has to be called something, though, and "The Scene With Many Names" doesn't seem like a good candidate. I couldn't think of anything better than "Afro/Cosmic". —mjb (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "Afro/Cosmic" is a good title.P4k (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think "Afro/Cosmic music" is an OKAY title.  The problem that I have is that in the social circles I've been in and especially in the dj record stores here on the west coast USA, I see "Cosmic Disco" more often the label or term used.  Just because it seems unfairly favoring Baldelli doesn't mean that in fact it IS the more common term in the language.  Perhaps Wikipedia isn't supposed to care about common usage and can make articles about things using secondary or less-common terms (that is what "afro/cosmic music" would strike me as.  If that is the case, then the main article could logically be "afro/cosmic music", but if it is supposed to gravitate toward the most common name, I got the impression that "cosmic disco" was more common, which is why I made the original article.  In any case, I think that they should be merged, yeah.  I don't have a lot of stake in any of this, but I happen to work at a library and the common cataloging practice is to build subject reference by the likely (common) phrase people might use.  For instance, Kleenex is a copyright term for a brand of personal tissue paper, but people use the word kleenex to refer to just any kind of tissue because kleenex brand lapsed on protecting their copyright, or were so ubiquitous at some point that their brand became the term used to represent all generic forms of the same product.  This is similar to the way many people say "rollerblades" when they mean generic (any kind of) in-line skates.  So what I'm getting at is that the fair/unfairness of the name favoring someone (Baldelli) shouldn't matter if, in fact, the phrase is truly the most commonly used.  There's the rub: to measure which is most commonly used "cosmic disco" or "afro/cosmic music" and direct the lesser popular to the more popular one, right?  And it could be regional, I'd totally admit that myself...
Or is all this mergin-direction-stuff just a 'wikitionary' kind of concern only?
Djbrokenwindow (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: 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:
* 82.58.50.246 (on Cosmic Disco and :it:Musica afro)
* 79.7.93.239 (on Cosmic Disco)
* 82.56.31.48 (on Afro/Cosmic music)
* 79.0.100.163 (on Cosmic Disco and Afro/Cosmic music)
The edits do contain some plausible information, but they are written as if they are angry rebuttals on a message board, so they can't be allowed to stand. Also, a significant amount of sourced material was deleted, including specific references to published sources of info about the topics. As per Wikipedia policies, any information must be backed up by published, reliable sources sooner or later, and removing existing sources is not allowable.
If there are inaccuracies or misleading information or other problems in the Wikipedia articles, but you don't have magazine, magazine, or academic journal articles you can point to in order to support your point of view, then don't make your edits directly to the articles on Wikipedia. Instead, please discuss the issues on the articles' talk pages:
* Talk:Afro/Cosmic music (here, below)
* Talk:Cosmic Disco
* :it:Discussione:Musica afro
Then maybe we can figure out a way to proceed with consensus and in a way that is fair to all.
The theme of the edits seems to be that Afro and Cosmic are distinct, and shouldn't be lumped together (even though they sometimes are, in the press). So let's discuss here the ways in which they are distinct and the ways in which they are similar, and how we can write about them neutrally. Also the anonymous editor(s) seems to mistrust all of Baldelli's claims. So let's discuss here exactly which statements are in doubt and what we can do to reconcile them, keeping in mind we have to acknowledge what has been said publicly by everyone about both "Afro" and "Cosmic" and their personal styles of mixing, even if it is false or misleading. To address issues of neutrality, we must carefully choose our words to say "this has been said, and this other conflicting thing has been said" (by these certain people in these certain publications), which is not the same thing as simply saying "this is true" or "this is false" without external support. This manner of writing is a higher standard that Wikipedia articles must be held to. Anything less will undermine the stability and credibility of the articles.
Lastly, although you are free to do what you want, I personally ask that you please don't edit anonymously. Create an account and edit your own user page to tell us who you are. You should have nothing to hide if you are a serious disciple of this music, and it can increase your credibility as an editor. You can read about me on my page, User:Mjb, for example, and send me a private message if you want more info. —mjb (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Cosmic/anti-Baldelli edits