Talk:Pop-punk: Difference between revisions
Cretaceousa (talk | contribs) →Criticism section is not NPOV: new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Pop-punk/Archive 5) (bot |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
== 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). [[User:Dekai Averett|Dekai Averett]] ([[User talk:Dekai Averett|talk]]) 21:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC) |
|||
: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). '''[[User:DannyMusicEditor|<span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">danny</span><small>music</small><span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">editor</span>]]''' <sup> [[User talk:DannyMusicEditor|oops]] </sup> 04:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Broken Citation Link == |
== Broken Citation Link == |
||
Revision as of 03:15, 22 August 2021
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pop-punk article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Broken Citation Link
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Criticism section is not NPOV
The criticism section seems to be something someone added because they personally don’t like pop punk. Articles about similar genres don’t have criticism sections, and pop punk has been popular for years (in the 2000’s as well as the last 3 or so years) so I don’t feel it’s warranted because there clearly isn’t a consensus that pop punk is bad music. Cretaceousa (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)