Jump to content

Talk:Pop-punk: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Fix archive subpage after page move
added projects and ratings
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Vital article|class=B|level=5|link=Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts|anchor=Rock (27 articles)}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Talk header}}
{{controversial}}
{{controversial}}
{{pageviews}}
{{Vital article|class=B|level=5|topic=Arts|link=Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Arts|anchor=Rock (27 articles)}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject Punk music|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Punk music|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Music genres|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Music genres|class=B|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Pop music|class=B|importance=mid}}}}
{{WikiProject Pop music|class=B|importance=mid}}
}}


{{refideas
{{refideas

Revision as of 17:09, 3 June 2021

Template:Vital article


Easycore, infobox

Could Easycore be given it's own infobox in its section? It wouldn't be the only page to have a second infobox as Jazz-rock, Indietronica, and Jazzcore all have infoboxes on their respective pages (Jazz fusion, Indie rock, and Jazz punk). Dekai Averett (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Easycore is not as big a genre as you think it might be, and honestly the other examples probably shouldn't either. They do source their claims just fine, but I would object to why they are there in the first place because that's already been made clear in the prose (or if it's not, it could easily be done). dannymusiceditor oops 04:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 83 - a yahoo bio referencing Avril Lavigne's music as pop-punk or pop-punk inspired - is broken. --Nkcomn (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blink's huge representation in pop punk

Reading the article it only showcases Blink-182 being just another band that got mainstream, while not refering to them as being responsible for its huge influence in developing the subgenre, that it's often overshadowed by critic darlings Green Day. I made changes that I considered "major" in the summary, putting Green Day (along w/ Rancid and Offspring) in prompting punk rock (not pop punk) to mainstream success, while pointing blink as the band that made pop punk mainstream as a whole in late 90s, because of their glossy production made the band a household name in the subgenre, that propelled them to a more radio-friendly sound than their contemporaries. ManneredMan (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revival in 2018-20

Hello, I think it's worth mentioning there has been a revival of sorts over the last couple of years, with Blink-182's new album 'Nine' to the reunion of MCR, and the return of guitars in many pop radio settings (see Demi Lovato's 'emo' release of one of her songs recently). I do not believe who ever keeps deleting the title 'revival' that I have added has reason to. There certainly is something going on and I even included news stories pondering it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3008:202:AA00:35E6:396:B1D7:5301 (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH in old characteristics section

Please stop restoring the horribly sourced version of the "characteristics" section. Most of the claims are not supported by the sources. It's unarguably preferable to present the sources' opinions on pop punk individually than to bundle them together and pretend that they're each describing the same concept (they're not!). ili (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, please stop doing the same for the lead. The body has several different contradicting definitions of pop-punk and it's not Wikipedia's job to take sides when each pov is equally valid.ili (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]