Talk:Uptown (Prince song)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

R&B and Soul Music

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

To user Marco

You haven't provided any proof that my sources are any less reliable than yours. You and I are at a disagreement. I disagree with this song being classified as pure "Disco", the same way you disagree with the new wave label. Truth is, the song has elements of both, but again, this song is too heavily synthesized and electronic to be labeled as pure "disco". While you may have an article to support your claim, that is only one article by one author, and that author's opinion. Other sources do not have the disco classification but might have:synth funk, dance or minneapolis sound. I provided several genre finder sources that have been supported and used by others on Wikipedia, yet every source I provide, you shut down. Report me if you must, but keep in mind, I can report you too. Greystone08 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that you are analyzing the songs yourself, and assigning genres based on what they sound like to you, or what was going on in the world at that time. Your edit summaries include the following:

"Although it does have a disco element, it is more of a post-disco or synth-funk beat. This song uses heavily synthesized instruments which clearly distinguishes it from disco"
"This album has all the elements of post disco because more electronic synthesizers were used."
"Restored original description disco Funk since this was the transition period from the disco to disco Funk period"
"This song is a 4 on the floor beat which classifies as disco"
"Added New Wave to the genre because part of what defines New Wave songs are their catchy and commical lyrics. "

The problem is that you are violating the hard policy of WP:No original research. Genres for songs come from sources naming the genre for the song. They don't come from Wikipedia editors. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So I’m guessing you are a moderator and I have been reported.

No I’m not analyzing anything. The post disco period had begun. Even using Wikipedia own definition, the term “post disco” is a stripped Down version of disco.

I’m not sure how you concluded but even using the other sources, they rarely refer to this song as disco. Greystone08 (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: every four on the four beat does not classify as disco Greystone08 (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used sources such as Chosic and Spotify which actually are music genre finders and they have been used by others here on Wikipedia. Marcos removed them, but his source is no more credible

You’re saying I’m violating a policy but I have a problem with that. The source that he’s using to say disco is simply an article which you told me I’m not able to do.

It just seems a little one-sided to me. Greystone08 (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure if you saw my reply in the last topic, but it seems as by your editing my last post, you’re automatically siding with Marco.

My reasons are stated below:

I used sources such as Chosic and Spotify which actually are music genre finders and they have been used by others here on Wikipedia. Marcos removed them, but his source is no more credible

You’re saying I’m violating a policy but I have a issue with that. Policy also says a person is not supposed to repeatedly edit another persons posts either.

The source that he’s using to say the song disco is simply an article which you told me I’m not able to do, but he’s able to do it? That same source I used said the song is a synth- funk too. Marco removed it. The song is heavily synthesized

It just seems a little one-sided to me. And I need help understanding why his points are more valid than mine. I was going to report him too but I wanted to do the talk page first to try to work it out. Greystone08 (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding a new level 2 header when you reply. It's all the same discusion. There are talk page guidelines you can check out for typical practices of how to respond to others on talk pages. Usually a new level of indentation is sufficient to distinguish another of your talk page entries.

Automated genre finders such as Pandora, Chosic and Spotify are not considered reliable sources for genres on Wikipedia. What's reliable is a human author who is a professional journalist, music scholar or music critic, writing about the genres in the music, using prose to lay out what the genres are. That's it! If you don't have a named human author who is an expert in the field, then you don't have any leverage in your genre arguments. WP:SECONDARY sources by human authors. Find them and cite them. Or stop editing genres. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the mobile version I was using was not allowing me to simply reply to the topic.

So all in all, with your edits and criticisms, It looks like I've lost this battle. However, I still feel my points are valid. The entire "Dirty mind" album is even said to be a cross between fusion, post- disco, and dance in certain citations even in Wikipedia. Because the song was released right on the fringes of the post-disco era, and can be heard using the definition of post-disco (being disco that started taken on electronic characteristic circa 1979-1985), it is not inaccurate to say that this song doesn't fit the bill.

But i appreciate you making everything more clear. Greystone08 (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another question I have about only using articles from professional journalist?

Every song does not have an article written by a human author, much less written by a professional journalist. So in those cases, how are we supposed to identify the genres?

Please assist Greystone08 (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you get a moment, please follow up with me for my question i presented on February 1, 2023 Greystone08 (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]