 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 275 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613477 Today 3 Topics 127503 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I tried working together with these people on wiki, but nobody responds to my discussion on the talkpage they just put the sentence back in. The person that did respond didn't put it back in. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
why do you care so much man? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, I've said that corpuscles have been said to be what makes up your basic sense perceptions. It is valid by the same reasoning given by horsey-g up there: "the sentence is entirely factual. it says that he has been described as (not that he is) the most inventive/influential artist" (emphasis added) "Whether or not aphex is the most influential and innovative electronica artist can never be proven." Sure it can be. It's all about setting down the criteria. A likely way to do it would be to compare all the lists of electronica artists' influences to each other, and determining whether or not Aphex Twin is the name that occurs most often on these lists. On the other hand, if it isn't something that can be proven, you've confirmed its status as eternal hearsay, making it unfit for any encyclopaedic article. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't know, it's a thorn in my sight |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Well, without performing an actual statistical analysis, I can make a pretty safe projection that kraftwerk would have beat rdj as being more influential. From Depeche Mode, to Autechre, to Underworld and RDJ himself ANYONE making electronic music owes so much to them. As far as innovation goes, it did not say artist but figure. I think someone like Bob Moog or Léon Theremin is going to have him beat there. You have to have the device before you have the user, so the later could not exist without the former. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, I've said that corpuscles have been said to be what makes up your basic sense perceptions. Yes, but it's incomparable, since your example is a scientific article (in which such a sentence wouldn't be appropriate) and this is a biographical article (in which such a sentence is totally appropriate.) Sure it can be. It's all about setting down the criteria. A likely way to do it would be to compare all the lists of electronica artists' influences to each other, and determining whether or not Aphex Twin is the name that occurs most often on these lists. This is just as reasonable a suggestion as marlowe's quip to Dan there in [#02205496], that someone could "wade through every single Wikipedia article to gauge the average time between edits and then compile a nice spreadsheet." The only difference is, marlowe was joking. Get fucking real. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ah that's you consideration: it's just a biographical wiki article i think it should also include music history (science) though |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"your example is a scientific article [...] and this is a biographical article" Even though I get what you mean, that just isn't true; they're both encyclopaedia articles. What you're referring to is the content or topic of the article, but in an encyclopaedia, the form(al requirements) of an article wouldn't vary across topics and contents. "This is just as reasonable a suggestion as marlowe's quip to Dan there" Yes, but neither task is impossible, and if the verification criteria exist, then a statement is capable of being proven. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Spock: I can't find the exact calculation. Bones: Well, then you'll just have to give it your best shot. Spock: My best shot? Bones: Yea, take your best guess. It's OK, go ahead. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
