Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronic music

message: This looks like a very good opportunity for is to broadly increase quality of articles falling under this project. When comparing Coachella (festival) toElectric Forest, it's clear that the EF page leaves a lot to be desired. The EF page also suffers from 95% of its content being annual lineups of its performers, when this content should be WP:SPINOFF to its own page so the main article can focus on content similar to the Coachella article.
While I understand that not many festivals have the coverage or content that Coachella does, we can still strive to mimic structure. Let me know your thoughts, thanks!  Pdubs.94 (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For smaller articles, it may not make sense to WP:SPINOFF. Though there is a potential WP:UNDUE issue when 95% of content is lists of lineups. In general, I support using the structure of high-quality as a template for improving lower-quality ones. Do keep in mind that there are multiple ways to do things good and Wikipedia does not place a lot of value on consistency between articles (consistency within an article is valued). ~Kvng (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  makes sense to me. i think i can surmise where it makes to "template" pages and also where we don't need to spinoff lineups. overall it's probably still a good approach to try and mimic structure but understand that they are "loose" models for structuring articles Pdubs.94 (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardization of festival pages 

message: Hi, as someone who is fairly involved in the dubstep scene, I wanted to contribute by helping add what I believe to be some pretty notable missing information (subgenres, trends, artists, etc) about some of the more recent trends in dubstep. For example, I see a brief mention of Colour Bass in the current article, but it leaves out mention of other major trends from around the same time such as Marauda's popularization of Tearout, the Excision-led rise of Briddim, iterations of "New" Riddim from artists such as Voltra, future riddim and a whole bunch more. I wanted to ask if there was a certain approach to tackle this with, as I would love to help write about these, just wanted to know if anyone had any plans to do this or if I can potentially start writing about these things. Desx74 (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent trends/subgenres in dubstep 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Stereotype (Karl Wolf album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotype (Karl Wolf album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Stereotype (Karl Wolf album)]] for deletion 

message: Hey all,
Been doing little bits of editing as part of this project only recently, after stumbling across the DJ Rush page. Appreciate this is a semi-active project so I'm not necessarily expecting a response. But I wondered if industry focused electronic music pages would count as being part of this project? I have been re-drafting a page on the PR agency Infamous PR- as they are primarily electronic music focused, I *think* they now have the notability/press coverage to justify a stub, but they are a small firm so I could be wrong. I have submitted it as a draft to be reviewed but thought listing it as part of this project could help as there may be other editors who can advise on whether it's notable or not. But not sure if an agency would/should be part of this project, even if it's related to the genre?
Thanks for any advice Editing84 (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry forgot to add link to the draft- Draft:Infamous PR#History  Editing84 (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Looks like a good start. It doesn't hit the bullseye here but go ahead and add it to the project. ~Kvng (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, will do. They have now reviewed it but feel that the sources aren't good enough yet. I thought there were enough to justify the page being created- ie more than just mentions/announcements- and growing overtime, but maybe it's borderline! Editing84 (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As a reviewer I can tell you that AfC is a gauntlet. I would consider moving the article to mainspace yourself. There's a chance it will be deleted but I think that's WP:UNLIKELY. ~Kvng (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah interesting. I didn't want to move it myself because when I first created the article I did that- as that's what I would usually do when I create one- but someone nominated it for deletion because it wasn't good enough- I asked to re-draft instead and eventually consensus was reached on that. A much better long-form source was published since then, so I thought that would be a positive improvement, as well as an overall re-write of the content- but still felt that if I moved it myself other editors might not like it, given the past history. Hard to say, it's a bit of a minefield at times! Editing84 (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, previous AFD does change things. Can you supply a link to that discussion? Also, is there any WP:COI in play here? ~Kvng (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that makes sense- the old afd discussion is here- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infamous PR I also managed to totally confuse the process by not being familiar with it myself, but now have a slightly better grasp on things! No COI- but I knew of the company and liked some of the charitable initiatives they'd set up in the scene, so suspect my first draft was more positively leaning than it should have been. So I worked on the neutrality after that. Editing84 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the scope of the electronic music project include industry focused pages? 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Courting#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:Courting#Requested move 9 January 2024]] 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Let Go (KMFDM album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let Go (KMFDM album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Jax 0677 (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Let Go (KMFDM album)]] for deletion