Talk:Rare groove

i redid this page, probably not as much info as in the original like you said said maceo but yeah i added a couple more artists, someone seems to have gotten rid of th elists for no reason, the lists of artists i tihnk are very helpful for people trying to get into the music, as it gives them a base for hunting for new music, so please stop getting rid of the lists and things whoever does it. 121.217.153.133 (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't know who did it, but who ever you are, thanks for bringing back the Rare Grooves page. From what I've seen of the page it appears to be quite more advandced since the first Rare Grooves article, with a longer list of musical artists. The first paragragh is a bit shorter than that of the original, but I'll add information when I come across it. I hope this article can develop further in the future, as Rare Grooves are a type of music I hold close to me and would like this artical to be maybe no longer a stub (what does that take?).--Maceo (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What the heck happened?

Where did this article go? It was so good originally, then it was deleted, restored to a lesser page than it's original form, then shortened to just two sentences!! What is the deal here!!?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandalorian NerfHerder Maceo (talk • contribs) 08:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

External Link for Rare Groove mp3 needs to be commercial because of licensing issues with torrent sites that are non-commercial

I am proposing adding an example of a rare groove digital library that sells rare groove in mp3 formats rather than vinyl as referred to in the article. There was a list of 3 rare groove record stores here as well but they have been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kary247 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The one you have repeatedly added is commercial, has a shopping cart, and sells MP3s. We do not ever add commercial links like this for any reason. Our external linking policy specifically prohibits links to "web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services" (WP:ELNO point 5). If you have a non-commercial site to propose, it will of course be considered. Yworo (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• website links to subject and is licensed - many sites are torrents sites that breach copyright so cant be placed on wiki copyright - I want to embedd and audio file too.

The website links to the subject - rare groove is available in digital formats. Before you deleted the external links here, there were vinyl records as well. Rare Groove is rare because it is hard to source. The advent of licensed digital formats allows this genre of rare and expensive groove music to be more accessible. Unlike a lot of torrent 'free and non-commercial' sites, this site is properly licensed under UK conventions - I am finding it hard to find a site with mp3 rare groove that doesn't just rip music off from the poor artists. I would argue that in this case a commercial site is warranted because of copyright issues connected to music sites that are non-commercial.

I was also hoping to embed and audio file as a sample of rare groove - perhaps I could put an audio file in the article next to the line about new digital formats - that would be fun for the user to listen to and a table? --Kary247 (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read and comprehend WP:EL, WP:NOTLINK, and WP:NOTDIR. I don't think you're getting this. There is no requirement that an article have external links. Many articles do not. If there are no links that comply with our policies, we simply don't list any links. We do not direct traffic to anybody's commercial site. If you don't believe me, ask over at the external links noticeboard or at WikiProject Spam. If I posted a notice at the latter, half-a-dozen uninvolved editors would come over here and also say "no". Yworo (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• So the difference between the link I am placing and the external links on deep funk would be? See deep funk links below:

--Kary247 (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid argument on Wikipedia. Those links need to be reviewed and many of them may need to be removed. Also, please don't copy the links here, I can see them just fine on the article. Yworo (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've told you, the copyright issue you bring up is moot. We don't make exceptions for commercial sites for that reason. Yworo (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Compromise- Suggested re-wording

I think you are being a bit strict here - because of the issues of included an external link to wiki for peer to peer torrent sites - copyright etc- I need to reference a commercially licensed rare groove mp3 site - the point being that this new technology has made the genre more affordable and available to the masses - hence the oxford dictionary in 2008 included the term 'rare groove'. This is the suggested wording.

Vinyl records that fall into this category generally have high resale prices. Rare groove records have been sought after by not only collectors and lovers of the types of music, but also by hip hop artists and producers.[3] Commercially licensed rare groove mp3 is more affordable and new digital technologies[4] allow users more affordable access to the genre, this affordability has brought about a resurgence of the genre in recent years, as evidenced by the inclusion of the term 'rare groove' in the Oxford dictionary.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kary247 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(^_^) You dropped something... [1] [2] No worries, happens all the time.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

consensus

Because of the issues of not being able to use a commercially licensed site and because it would not be fair to artists to use a torrent site and because the commons does not have any rare groove audio, we can't upload a sample of rare groove at the moment as an audio file because there has not been an agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kary247 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

[3] Please read: WP:CONSENSUS—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Groove(music)

I think it would be a good idea to have a section at Groove(music) on 'rare groove'. I think then this stub could then link to that category - lots of people search for the term 'groove' and as it is a very popular style of music it would be good to link this page, rare groove, to the main page - I have put a suggestion on the Groove page also.--Kary247 (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Link to that category? So, categories impact search results and this page would get more hits if that page links to this page?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Groove is not a music, it is a way in which music is played. Also, it has nothing to do with hard to find vinyl. 83.87.238.229 (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.238.229 (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Increased accessibility of Rare groove

As mentioned in Talk:Groove (music)#section on rare groove, I think it's ok to go have see also links but I don't think the two are more directly related than that.

I've placed an additional reference to Lynskey (2006) in The Guardian to clarify what's sourced: "Online music retailers carry a wide selection of rare groove, offering fast downloads over broadband at very affordable prices. This availability and ease of access has brought about a resurgence of the genre in recent years" (but not "as evidenced by the inclusion of the term 'rare groove' in the Oxford dictionary").

I removed "ongoing popularity of Groove as a style of music" because for these reasons and because it's peculiar, (if not incorrect), to call it a style of music.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes I see why you have included the ref. but I am wondering, given the sources I have found suggest that the development rare groove music is interconnected to, and reflective of, the civil rights movement and black power etc, if the term 'exotic music' may not be a little bit not PC? Maybe we could just simply state: "rare groove is also available in digital formats" and not worry about the reference there. I think with the internal link to another wiki, the source is not even needed because it is just an obvious fact that you can get rare groove in mp3 as well as vinyl. I think that Groove is a style of music, it is not a genre, not a form so that leaves style, if you think that is incorrect, I would be happy to change the wording. Finally, you are right, the word order is not correct and needs to be changed, so that the implication is not connected to the Oxford dictionary. Not sure how to word it though?--Kary247 (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't say "exotic music" and I don't agree that the source is even remotely politically incorrect. As you don't provide a plausibly relevant reason for being contentious about it, I'll remind you that you were very recently blocked for edit warring about it. You've also receiving four SPAM warnings for inserting your URL, insisting it needs a source. Nonetheless, I've compromised on the language, (relative to the changes in your edit). Unless someone has an issue grounded in WP policy and guidelines, I'm not inclined to replace relevant and sourced material, just to be accommodative of rationalization and capricious indirection.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• The article says 'once exotic-music' the reason for reverting you was the language choice I was referring given sources suggest a link between rare groove and the civil rights movement I just feel this language choice is not pc and I am focusing on this with sourcing and language choices.
• As you have agreed, could you please remove the ref. to 'dizzying array of once exotic music' from the footnote/references
• As I mentioned, it is obvious that rare groove is available in digital and vinyl so the internal link to wiki 'digital' should be sufficient so no source here is needed anyway
• We don't want do use academic language too much," Groove is a style of music" makes sense, is correct and is much easier for the reader to understand. Do you have any references to suggest refute this or that suggest Groove is not a style of music?--Kary247 (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• The source says "once exotic-music" but the text you're insisting on deleting does not. Your claim that any of it isn't "pc"... simply has no merit. Make no mistake, what you're focusing on is another edit war, this was your third revert. Please self-revert because I'm going to inquire if three will be sufficient considering the WP:IDHT [4].
• What utter nonsense: "As you have agreed". I've made it perfectly clear I'm not removing the reference.
• Obviously, that's not what the reference is for. BTW, I only emphasized the low price because you included "affordable" three times in one run on:

  "Commercially licensed rare groove mp3 is more affordable and new digital technologies allow users more affordable access to the genre, this affordability has brought about a resurgence of the genre in recent years, as evidenced by the inclusion of the term 'rare groove' in the Oxford dictionary." [5]

• What academic language? "Groove" refers to a style of music, but as two editors have informed you, myself included, it's not a superset of "Rare groove" and it's only tenuously related at best. According to Black British Feminism, "raregroove" is not a style of music. The author calls it a "term" and a "pseudo-genre", (false genre). However, she does mention a style of clothing... I'll add it to article when I have a chance.

I'm going to remove your other recently added source, There Ain't No Black in the Union Jack, because it says nothing whatsoever about Rare groove. It's incredible, but there's no mention of the subject in the entire book and it's no exaggeration to say that's typical of your sources. I believe you're aware that's considered vandalism. I'll place a message on your talk page as soon as find out what vandalism warning level you've achieved. Then again, I could just find three or four more by checking your work instead of rummaging through your talk page history.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for removing the term 'exotic' from the footnotes.
• Aint No Black in the Union Jack is in the reference list of the article RARE GROOVE AND RARE GROOVERS etc. In this article she references the definition of rare groove from Aint no black in the union jack - please check this source before deleting content.
• If you think rare groove is not a genre, maybe you should go through the article and remove any references to genre, would that be a good way of resolving the issue.

--Kary247 (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're saying you didn't remove the quote from the footnote, then you socked with your IP at 12:24 (Special:Contributions/94.175.145.18) and went on to 4RR at 13:00. At any rate, you just reverted again at 15:48 and again at 16:03. I'll be filing that edit war complaint presently.

So, I'm hearing you used someone else's citation and didn't even bother checking it yourself? Surprise, it doesn't mention rare groove or raregroove. The author is allowed WP:OR, you are not. You don't even give a page number for Black British Feminism.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I already filed one here, but I didn't catch the revert(s) while logged out. Yworo (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

RG

Might I say that rare groove is driven by clicky drumbeats?