Talk:Lo-fi (disambiguation)
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
Incoming links
editI've changed the redirect Lo-fi into a disambiguation page and retargeted a number of redirects to it, but this has resulted in a large number of incoming links. If you'd like to help me fix them then I'd be grateful: "low fidelity" or "lo-fi" usually needs to link to:
- "low fidelity" (or the redirect Lo-fi (audio)) for technical reproduction, or
- "lo-fi music" (or the redirect Lo-fi (music)) for aesthetic style
- (or, I must admit, be deleted if the mention is ambiguous and trivial).
Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Requested move 30 April 2019
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Calidum 06:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Lo-fi (disambiguation) → Lo-fi – Lo-fi was a redirect to Lo-fi music but I converted it into a disambiguation page because there are a number of terms to which "lo-fi" could refer. User:Ilovetopaint moved the disambiguation page Lo-fi to Lo-fi (disambiguation) and redirected Lo-fi to Lo-fi music. I wish to undo that undiscussed move: "Lo-fi music" is not the primary topic for "Lo-fi". "Lo-fi" in the sense of audio reproduction (Lo-fi (audio) redirects to Fidelity#Audio and electronics) is a long-standing term used to describe low-fidelity technical reproduction techniques, not the lo-fi music aesthetic. I don't think either term is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: the aesthetic may have more popularity but the technical reproduction meaning has a longer-term use. About two-thirds of the ambiguous uses of "lo-fi" that I have fixed mean the aesthetic: about one third mean audio reproduction. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Relist note: members of the dab project have been notified of this discussion on the project's talk page. Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 16:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:OVERLAP, lo-fi music (or "lo-fi aesthetic") and lo-fi sound reproduction cover the same subjects.
- Although I agree that you can split hairs between "lo-fi the musical aesthetic" and "lo-fi the audio engineering term", virtually every source that invokes "lo-fi" refers to an aesthetic. Not only that, but there's more coverage of low-fidelity sound reproduction on Lo-fi music than on any other article. For these reasons, it's not useful that readers are redirected to a disambiguation page when they query "lo-fi", especially when there aren't other topics dedicated to "poor" sound quality.
- Additionally, I could not find examples of technical sources that use the term "lo-fi" as anything but an aesthetic (see Practical Recording Techniques). Thus, it could be argued that Lo-fi music should just be retitled Lo-fi. ILTP (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Note that the proposal's description of "undo that undiscussed move" would be better stated "undo the undo of the undiscussed change from primary topic to no primary topic". 2/3 meaning the music aesthetic is an indication that the arrangement is correct. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. feminist (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.