Talk:Emo/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

More about the culture

We should have more about the emo culture in the article. Once it reaches a certain mass I think we should also split the articles into a Emo (music) and Emo (culture). Mchcopl (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)!

Weezer a cornerstone emo band?

I'm not finding any sources to comment on that. The link that is currently used is dead. Great little bits of history on Weezer, but not relevant at all to the genre. On the Weezer page, the band isn't even categorized as emo and only mentioned loosely as being associated with emo just once. Third Eye Blind claims an influence from hip-hop, but I can assure you they aren't hip-hop. Association and loose influence hardly amounts to being a "cornerstone" of a genre. --38.98.176.194 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The main source for this is a print source: Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo by Andy Greenwald. He devotes a chapter to Weezer and the impact of Pinkerton on the perception of emo in the 1990s. The Rolling Stone link is dead since their horrible site redesign several years ago, but it may be possible to retrieve it using a webarchive service. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Alkaline Trio, emo-pop?

In the "emo-pop" in my opinion is wrong Alkaline Trio put there. Okay, there is a reference, but "emo-pop" is a genre that fits more with bands like All Time Low, Fall Out Boy and MacFly than with Alkaline Trio, although I agree that there is an emo influence there, but more drawn into the Emotional Hardcore (sorry for bad English, I used Google Translator :S) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiohsilva100 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources trump editor opinion, every time. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream popularity: Early 2000s–present?

Can someone please explain to me how exactly Emo is still mainstream? There is no is no visible mainstream "Emo scene" anymore and there hasn't been one since it died out around 2007/2008. If it's still mainstream, then how come the most recent info on here is about when it broke out in 2002 and 2003. I honestly tried to find info to update it and show its status 2010-now but there really is none. Is it safe to take away the "present" part or is there any info someone can find to show there's still a large scene around that I must be blind to? For the most part, the "big" Emo bands from back then like My Chemical Romance have largely moved to a more mainstream pop-y sound as opposed to their older stuff. 30 Seconds to Mars are still Emo is some regards I suppose, but definitely not like their older stuff. Same with Paramore. Same with Taking Back Sunday. Fall Out Boy have broken up for the members to pursue solo projects but their last album was not Emo at all. Panic At the Disco have both gone under the radar (As opposed to when they broke out in early 2000) AND moved away from their Emo sound. While other formerly "big" bands like Jimmy Eat World, Funeral for a Friend, Dashboard Confessional, Hawthorne Heights, Lostprophets, The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus, and Story of the Year have pretty much died or are flying way under the radar. So, I guess remove "present" all together or put something like "Mainstream popularity: Early 2000s. Underground:2010-present" or find some info saying it's still as big and mainstream as it was back in 2002 please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.184.100 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your personal opinions on the subject are irrelevant. If you want to declare it no longer popular, you need a reliable source supporting that claim. As mentioned here, plenty of acts lumped in with "emo" continue to enjoy mainstream popularity, and the style continues to make headlines. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Not to actively agree with the anon about these bands 'dying', but I am curious as to what reliable sources still say and publicise about emo in the last 4-5 years. It does seem the term 'emo' has dropped out of favour in the media. So I may do some research into how it's used in the past few years. I have two 2009 sources about 30 Seconds to Mars which rooted from this discussion about whether they are emo or not. ("Kings and Queens," the thudding arena-emo single, ...a cross between Linkin Park's grungy emo-pop and U2's brand of commercial rock) And from work I've done on Funeral For a Friend's article I've found sources which still look at them as emo.
Internationally, I've seen awful stories like this in Iraq reported March 2012. And from some of the older but ongoing issues I've seen in the news it appears that emo, at least on a subcultural level is still very much alive. Jonjonjohny (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jonjonjohny. I honestly don't think I've heard as much about Emo music in the past 5 years as it was back in say 2003. And to a certain extent, I also agree with the topic maker. Looking at the article, the information on the music scene (Which I'm differentiating from the fashion scene) does seem to be limited to the early 2000's aside from the mention of Cash Cash's album in 2008. Are there any reliable stories anyone can find on the scene as a whole instead of about a few bands loosely linked to the genre?--P.4.P. No. 1 (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
After doing a bit of initial research I found two sources talking about The Used's new album Vulnerable. Emo-pop album misses the mark, despite noteworthy opening and end songs, Emo legends lose their musical plot. The Daily Nebraskan and The News Record with both titles and content highlight that this band is part of a declining style, maybe isn't helpful but a start. Then:
And some more international, I know there is an article for the Emo killings in Iraq. I do think this source or something of the like should be used to expand the paragraph in this article describing what it is about emos that the militia hate and deem wrong. This source is a bit more bias and emotive in its writing, but perhaps usable to say the issue could also be institutional? e.g.The paragraph starting "The Interior Ministry jump-started..." Also something new that Saudi Arabian emos are being barred from entering a university in their country.
And this was all only published in 2012. Jonjonjohny (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Guys, what are you talking about? Those latest articles only about emo in Far East (where it's may be just a fashionable subculture - not a mainstream music), but we're talking about the Western World (USA, Europe) and post-Socialist countries like Russia. I know in Russia was some blast of emo-pop and emo subculture in 2006-2008, lots of foreign bands like MCR, Fall Out Boy, and even (don't laugh!) Tokio Hotel were here - I don't talk about Russian bands like Origami and Neversmile - but then they're suddenly disappeared, like all of those emoboys and emogirls who matured and became hc-kids, hipsters, indie kids, yuppies or someone else. And the western bands distanced themselves from emo subculture and now trying to change their own musical style but they're now haven't the same attention as in the middle of 2000's, new emo-bands are just stop to appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.134.45.82 (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with his agreement. What emo band is popular in the mainstream. You can't even include the new emo bands that where charting in 2004-2006. Your so inaccurate, that you can't even admit that emo isn't popular in 2012. Just change it popular already or at least mention the band that where big in 2008 when it ended — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.3.101 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
What you seem to forget is that bands closely associated with the emo hype of the 2000s My Chemical Romance, Paramore and 30 Seconds To Mars are at arena touring level of popularity, same goes to Fall Out Boy if they reformed and booked a tour that size tomorrow. They are not only continuing to tour but there is massive hype surrounding these bands follow up albums. And as for Jimmy Eat World, Dashboard Confessional, Sunny Day Real Estate and Motion City Soundtrack they all run on enough steam to keep playing and making a decent living off it so it's not like they are done. Also you could even say bands like La Dispute are reviving interests in the style in the underground as there is sources to consider them as emo. Jonjonjohny (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
But even still, can you honestly say that Emo is still "mainstream"? As in still have the chart topping popularity it did back in 2005? MCR have distanced themselves so far from Emo that they wouldn't touch it with a 50ft pole, 30 Seconds To Mars have largely moved away from their old Emo sound, Paramore more or less sounds the same and are still popular so I'll let you have that one and those other bands are nowhere near the size of the aforemantioned ones. You could even say that Taking Back Sunday have moved back to their old Emo sound from Tell All Your Friends with their recent album, so I'll even throw them in too. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to agree with you, as those are some of my favorite bands and I was (And still am) an 'Emo kid', but there's no way that you can say that the Emo music scene is still as big as it was during the early 2000's. It's not dead, but certianly not mainstream anymore. But on the whole, I agree with the topic starter, I beleive it should be changed to something like "Mainstream popularity: Early 2000's-Late 2000's Underground: 2010-present". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.167.23 (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of how highly it charts, music released by internationally-touring rock stars like Paramore and TBS, who have fanbases numbering in the millions, who headline the Warped Tour, who appear on the covers of industry magazines, and whose records are aggressively promoted by major record labels, can hardly be called "underground". I don't think you have any idea what the term "underground" means. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Is Paramore even emo? I assume most people consider them to be pop-punk. I agree that emo isn't at nearly the same level that it was in the 2000's, but we do need some reliable sources to verify this. – Confession0791 talk 15:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Many emos are cutters because they feel unloved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovemetomarrow (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

IllaZilla, I think you are the one who has no idea what people are talking about. This article is about emo as a whole, not about few bands that are still selling millions of albums. The subculture as a whole is not mainstream anynmore. Just becasuse Black Sabbath may headline some festivals, doesn't mean that early heavy metal is mainstream and constant on radio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.80.245 (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

So true. — Confession0791 talk 21:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The other thing to consider here is that it isn't a choice between strictly mainstream or underground. Emo is absolutely, certainly not underground. However, while it does hold a very heavy mainstream presence, and some bands continue to maintain their old sound and draw in massive crowds, the peak of emo's popularity seems to have passed, at least for now. So it's more like, "Mainstream popularity: Peaked from early 2000's-late 2000's."--¿3family6 contribs 22:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

So in other words, 2000's? — Confession0791 talk 18:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
If we mean decade. 2000s could also mean century or millennium. I simply was following the wording used by the above editors.--¿3family6 contribs 11:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Well I just discovered that "mainstream popularity" has been removed as a parameter on Template:Infobox music genre. It may need a source to be included in the article itself. — Confession0791 talk 13:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

After further investigation into this subject, I have a few recommendations to modify the Emo article. Specifically the "Fashion and stereotype" and "Criticism and controversy" subsections.

Regarding the format used
  1. Combine both the "Fashion and stereotype" and "Criticism and controversy" together. The reason being that some parts of "stereotype" section are talked about in the "criticism and controversy" subsection, namely suicide.
  2. More information needs to be added to the "stereotypes" subsection. There is only one single run-on sentence that lists a few descriptive words.
  3. Add on the "also read" option for the source. Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo by Andy Greenwald as over fifty percent of the cited sources are from this lone book.
  4. Add an actual picture of an Emo (near the "Fashion and stereotypes" subsection) instead of just a link to an "authentic Emo portal".
Regarding actual content
  1. In the "stereotypes" part in the "Fashion and stereotypes" subsection, even from the own sources provided, I suggest that more information/details be added. "The Emo is often going around talking about the superiority of his taste in music and his “distaste for mainstream media" and "mainstream bands" to others. Spend time alone, being sullen with self." are good examples. Rickman, Tracy, A. (October 19th). "Anomie Goes Online: The Emo Microculture" (PDF). ArcWebsite.org. Retrieved 11/3/12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. In the Fashion section of the "Fashion and Stereotypes" subsection it should be noted that most Emos purchase clothing from garage sales (likely so they can mend it to their preference) and their style can be compared to that of Hot topic which tries to sell clothing styles that Emo prefer. Bailey, Brian (2006). Contemporary Youth Culture. Greenwood: Westport. pp. 338–342. ISBN 978-0313327162.
  3. Another point to add in the Fashion section of the "Fashion and Stereotypes" subsection is that Emos prefer to dress like their favorite bands persons do. Bailey, Brian (2006). Contemporary Youth Culture. Greenwood: Westport. pp. 338–342. ISBN 978-0313327162.
  4. The term "Stereotype" is too derogotory for a website that bases itself off a professional encyclopedia. I suggest that either the subsection be called only "Fashion" or to remove the section/scentence entirely.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Faultproof21 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Gender bias

There is no gender bias for emos i believe this is no correct and must removed. emos also accept the equality between males and females. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultrafaster (talk • contribs) 12:51, 26 November 2012‎ (UTC)

Many reliable sources point out gender bias in emo with regard to there being very few women in emo bands, their lack of active voice in songs' subject matter, and the one-sided "lonely boy's aesthetic" of emo songs. However, sources also note that there are plenty of female emo fans. Whether you personally believe this is irrelevant; it is reliably sourced. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

New Found Glory emo?

I honestly dont see New Found Glory as an emo band at all i see them as a pop punk band like everyone else someone should change it if the lock wasent on there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.133.78 (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Post-Emotional Hardcore Punk Rock

I believe, that instead of grouping the multitude of bands described as "Emo" by this page, their should be a new genre created named "Post-Emo". This genre would include bands that have tooken inspiration from the original Emocore bands but have changed the sound of Emocore, but that cannot be accuratley described as "Emo-Pop". I belive this should happen because a music genre's sound cannot change, but it can evolve into a new form. Dj21299 (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not include something on top of article that say its based on big sources

Many guys come here saying that emo is not what the article say, and etc... and then people say wikipedia is about reliable sources and not about being right and etc..
Why not just state that in the top of the article. So, with it would sort of imply "hey the article may not be right, but complain about the big sources, its a wikipedia problem (well maybe the problem of wikiepdia rules and not of its writrers)"
Before someone this is a bad idea, explain why, because we are just stating what is actually happening. If that is what we are doing and is a perfectly right thing to do, there is no problem is telling what we are doing (well in the case of false flags stating the reason we are saying false stuff, would be a bad idea. But the example that happen with false flags doenst apply here, since we explain on the talk page, to the users, why the page is the way it is) 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.177.204 (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2014

Please add the following section to the article:

rendered text


"Emo revival"

The "emo revival"[1][2][3][4] is a development in the emo genre and the indie rock genre of the 2010s in which bands have taken inspiration from the sounds and aesthetics of emo of the 1990s and early 2000s. A largely underground movement, bands that have been characterized under this genre are The World Is a Beautiful Place & I Am No Longer Afraid to Die,[1][3][4] A Great Big Pile of Leaves,[1] Pianos Become the Teeth,[4] Empire! Empire! (I Was a Lonely Estate),[1] Touché Amoré,[1][3] and Into it. Over it.[1][3] While the emo bands from Washington, D.C. were gone, some bands have retained the hardcore punk-oriented sound during the 2000s, including My Chemical Romance. Before they released albums like Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge and The Black Parade, My Chemical Romance emerged as a hardcore punk-influenced emo band with their debut album, I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love, which was considered an emo album with strong influences from punk rock, emo, and hardcore punk.[5][6][7] However, the band changed their sound after this album.

  1. ^ a b c d e f DeVille, Chris. "12 Bands To Know From The Emo Revival". Stereogum. Retrieved 28 November 2013.
  2. ^ Ducker, Eric. "A Rational Conversation: Is Emo Back?". NPR. Retrieved 28 November 2013.
  3. ^ a b c d Gormelly, Ian. "Handicapping the Emo Revival: Who's Most Likely to Pierce the Stigma?". Chart Attack. Retrieved 28 November 2013.
  4. ^ a b c Cohen, Ian. "Your New Favorite Emo Bands: The Best of Topshelf Records' 2013 Sampler". Pitchfork. Retrieved 28 November 2013.
  5. ^ "I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love". IGN. 14 August 2004. Retrieved 4 April 2013.
  6. ^ "My Chemical Romance - I Brought You My Bullets, You Brought Me Your Love". Alternative Press. 23 July 2002. Retrieved 4 April 2013.
  7. ^ Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge - My Chemical Romance

Isn't indie rock a important role in the revival? 108.53.103.198 (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Cap'n Jazz

How does the 90's emo section not make reference to Cap'n Jazz? They were extremely influential, and their members went on to be in a number of the bands mentioned later in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.226.170 (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a bit about them awhile back. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Influence on Metalcore/Mallcore/Scenecore

Title says it all. It is true, listen to any "metalcore" act nowadays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.210.186 (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me. — Confession0791 talk 01:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No mentions of a good portion of 90s Emo. (if i've messed with something I shouldn't have, or accidentally overwritten something, I apologise.)

I'm not sure whether this is more a question about, or questioning of the article itself. maybe it will be a rant, lets see what mood i'm in. (i'm not going to edit this piece at the moment, but I will warn you it's long. and some of it did get quite ranty).

where are the 90s bands like Shotmaker, Julia, Four Hundred years, Native Nod, Navio Forge, Inkwell, Current, Allure, Breakwater, Lincoln, Car Vs. Driver, ordination Of Aaron, Still Life. they don't seem to be listed anywhere, nor their sounds or influence referenced at all.

It seems like this article ignored a good portion of 90s emo in favour of stuff that has more relations with Pop-punk, Skate-Punk, Alternate Rock, Grunge/post-grunge, Mathrock, Noise Pop/rock or other forms Of Indie rock and pop Music over Emo itself. Why not mention the bands that are more true to nature of the originators. you can't tell me that The Alkaline trio sound more like Emo than Policy Of 3. I'd even go as far to say that Alkaline trio would have a better fit with the goth rock and post-punk bands than with emo.

and how about the 2000s? or 2010s? no mentions of the Emo bands in those periods, nor the "Revivalists" playing the original sounds. Just a bunch of label bands and boy bands.


I know you guys have to find "Official Sources", but really. isn't it obvious alot of them have no fucking idea what they are talking about? they must be out of their mind to relate this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j82FBbgpUy4

with even this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAotWVmVRS4 and that bands one of the biggest "debates", in Emo.

and now.. Listen to this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cQh1ccqu8M


That's nickelback. Ignore the vocals of course and focus on the instrumentation. notice anything? they sound Similar to dashboard confessional. alot more similar atleast than dashboard do to any 80s/90s "Emo" acts, even the ones labeled as Indie. are they now an Emo band? how about evanescense, or Hinder? maybe we can throw in Linkin park and slipknot why we're at it, or maybe it's purely lyrical content. Miley Cyrus must be the Queen of emo, and who could forget the ever lovely Katy perry with her "Teenage Dreams".

Not only that, but a good portion of emo bands touched on Completely unrelated things in their lyrics. alot of them didn't even relate to relationships or rediculous teenage drama. they were all Unique.

I also find it Strange how none of the Emo bands Sound Anything alike during the 90s/2000s periods. now jimmy eat world doesn't exactly sound like Sunny Day real estate, but the difference isn't so big it's a problem. but what about when you throw in bands like American football. they have no similarities whatsoever. how about My Chemical romance vs The Promise ring? you could say lyrics, but a 1000 different genres touch on the exact same things. you can find thrash metal and Blues music going on about teenage sorrows and Bad relationship. lyrics are a poor way to relate things, because we are all humans, and we all share Re occurring experiences which just end up as song lyrics. are all those bands now Emo aswell?

Now I could be wrong about the lack of relations between bands. but you don't seem to specify songs, nor albums. just throw the bands in whole and stitch that label on. I will say this, My Chemical Romances First album has more in relations with emo than the majority of other bands mentioned in the 2000s I can hear a definite connection between maybe even the original stuff, or atleast the 90s Hardcore acts. (maybe). but it's ever so slight, could they really be the same? I think it'd be more fitting to say they have ties with emo or take influence from it. I'd say they have more resemblance with other genres. and on their later albums, they have no connection.

I think the title for this should be renamed Emo(Ambiguous). because this article doesn't seem to relate to anything. just a bunch of crappy interpretations by "Professionals" and stereotypes thrown into a messy piece of text where nothing relates. and the worst part is alot of it is written to sound definitive or as fact. rather than what it is.

The problem with official references. in the end they are just humans, and in my opinion alot of their insights and information is about equal in accuracy, worth and legitimacy as any others opinions.

Veiledinmisery (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, you may very well be right on all this, but Wikipedia guidelines are clear about reliable sources. You can't include information that you believe to be right without backing it up (that's original research), and if a lot of sources call a famous band emo, then it should be mentioned. If you want changes done to the article, you should be bold and try to make them yourself. Want some bands mentioned that are not? Find a source that discuss their relevance to the genre and add them. Think some bands are not actually emo? Find a source that says the same and you can change the style of the text to indicate that the label is controversial, not universally agreed on etc. Editing the article can get the changes you want implemented, while talking about them on the talk page likely won't. I can help with technical stuff, but I don't actually know and care enough about this to make changes to the article content.--MASHAUNIX 15:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


alright, what exactly would count as a reference? I could probably find tons of crap on the internet, but i'm not sure about it's Officiality. I doubt alot of it is written by big companies and studios or other heavily funded bodies such as all-music, nor by the bands themselves. but rather fans, Independant radio's and other pages/sources related to small time stuff or personal/privately run things, with small teams or singular people. (I have no idea how wiki formating or anything works, not even sure if I did this correctly)

Veiledinmisery (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Veiledinmisery, see WP:RS, as that details things to look for in reliable sources. Basically, you want something that went through some type of editorial process. Independent radio and small public or private sources are fine, as long as there is some type of editorial "team" involved that can vouch for the content's accuracy. Also, someone who is an established expert in the field (a very notable example would be Robert Christgau) can be cited as well, as long as that expert isn't making claims about a living person. You should probably browse music article source list for a list of some reliable major publications. Also see what sources are used in the 90s bands that you mentioned above.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
For an introduction to formatting and stuff, go through Wikipedia:Tutorial, especially Wikipedia:Tutorial/Formatting, Wikipedia:Tutorial/Wikipedia links and Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources. Once you know the absolute basics you can go ahead and edit; if you make mistakes, it doesn't really matter, as I or someone else can clean up the formatting etc.--MASHAUNIX 18:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Bollocks

"Emo began off as a style of post-hardcore[16] and emerged from the hardcore punk scene of early-1980s Washington, D.C., both as a reaction to the increased violence within the scene and as an extension of the personal politics espoused by Ian MacKaye of Minor Threat, who had turned the focus of the music from the community back towards the individual."

What does this even mean? -Alandada (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

methinks he means that it aint true about that sentence but u know u could have just deleted it whoever posted tahtt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.24.175 (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emo pop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

Ad I stated in my revert you need to discuss before you re-rewrite the lead. Please start laying out high quality third party sources that show that the current version of the lead is wrong. This means no interviews, no small zines, no blogs, and no genres in the sidebar of allmusic. Trying to stitch things together from a number of album reviews moves into synthesis. I have a copy of Nothing Feels Good and a copy of Our Band Could Be Your Life in case they need to be checked. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I included sources that describe emo as a genre of pop punk, sources that describe emo as a genre of hardcore punk and sources that describe emo as a genre of indie rock. I added more information about emo's mainstream popularity. I added more pictures. I included references. I added a characteristics section. I added more information. Already I am sticking to sources without using original research and I found sources that describe emo as a pop punk style, sources that describe emo as a hardcore punk style and sources that describe emo as an indie rock style. This can help improve the lead so that the lead states that emo is a genre of hardcore punk, post-hardcore, indie rock and pop punk. You reverted these edits. I'm pretty sure that other editors who reverted my edits, etc. would notice that I added sources for emo being a pop punk/indie rock/hardcore punk genre and they would notice that I'm finally sticking to sources without original research and they'd realize that I'm putting a neutral point of view of the definition of emo. I'm pretty sure that the reason why they are NOT reverting my edits anymore is because they noticed that I added sources for emo being a pop punk style, a hardcore punk style and an indie rock style. There's a lot of arguments over what emo is; some emo people think that bands such as Sunny Day Real Estate and Mineral are NOT emo and are just alternative rock/indie rock and they think that emo died in the 1990s after the days of Rites of Spring and Embrace; some people don't consider emo pop punk to be actual emo. This article does NOT consider bands such as Rites of Spring emo. Read this quote: "Some people like to say that real emo is "emotional hardcore," splintered off in the '80s by bands like Rites of Spring. To me, that's ridiculous: So-called first wave emo (at the time called emocore) is just hardcore with sappy lyrics. Today's emo kids do not, I assure you, give a fuck about Guy Picciotto."
Wikipedia's emo article has sources that say that emo originally was a hardcore punk/post-hardcore genre, but changed into an indie rock/pop punk genre. Also, when you reverted my edit, you reverted some grammar error fixings/section heading fixings/corrections of things that contradict other things in the article/etc. I'm pretty sure that if other editors saw my new edit, they would like it and agree that it shows a neutral point of view, has sources, and has NO original research. EuropeanSwedenAmerican2222 (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
You never added any sources saying that emo was a style of X. I looked. They just describe emo in relation to those genres. I found a book source that explicitly says "emo is a style of indie rock".You never accomplished anything close to that. You managed to add a few not-so-great sources that fail to mention anything about post-hardcore or "a subgenre of rock music".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with paint here. Further, the new Characteristics section over relies on direct quotes from AllMusic at the expense of better sources. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
This article does NOT consider bands such as Rites of Spring emo. That is considered a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. The majority of the literature agrees that Rites of Spring is emo and was the first emo band. (Greenwald 2003; Anderson 2001; Azerad 2001) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I was NOT using that as a source for the article. I was just pointing out how NOT everyone views Rites of Spring as emo, just like how NOT everyone views emo pop punk music as emo and NOT everyone views Sunny Day Real Estate as emo. I was pointing out how controversial the term "emo" is and how the neutral point of view of emo would view Rites of Spring as emo, would view Sunny Day Real Estate as emo, AND would view emo pop punk as emo. EuropeanSwedenAmerican2222 (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
You seem to have fallen into the pit that lots of novice wikipedians have about NPOV. NPOV does not mean that every opinion gets a seat at the table. NPOV means that we state the predominant and mainstream point-of-view with minority viewpoints given their weight depending on the weight of the sources. (WP:DUE) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Taking a look at the highest quality online sources I can find, this is how the genre is described:

  • Pitchfork : "Drive-Thru played a distinct role in linking pop-punk and emo together in the minds of casual music fans, despite them being, in many ways, drastically different. Although none of these traits were mutually exclusive back then (and the definition of each genre still varies depending on who you ask), generally speaking, pop-punk thrived on bratty humor, where emo aimed for more of a literary sensitivity."
  • NPR : "it sounds like emo — the broadly defined, male-dominated, compositionally complicated, often pained offshoot of American punk rock — is back"
  • Pitchfork : "The differences between "indie rock" bands and "emo" bands are often negligible. But both scenes are built on relationships, and each tribe has its own labels, publicists and publications.:
  • Rolling Stone : "It's been more than 30 years since punk rock's confessional, diaristic, heart-on-sleeve offshoot "emo" came screaming from Washington, D.C., and around a decade since its commercial peak."

(will be ading more this evening) --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Pet Sounds

Okay, I love Pet Sounds and Brian Wilson, don't get me wrong. But to consider that album a precursor to emo is a little much. Yes, there are common themes in Pet Sounds shared by many great emo albums and bands, but emo came from DC Hardcore and splintered off from there.

I think the bit about Pet Sounds being a precursor to emo should be removed. Anyone else agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimtimidation (talk • contribs) 14:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Emo pop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Precursors

I think this should get a mention: https://www.altpress.com/news/entry/a_young_skrillex_debates_the_meaning_of_the_word_emo — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaggotSupremacy555 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

tumblr-core

tumblr-core

Benjamin (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Fashion

Hardly any of the statements in the Fashion section are backed up by (in my eyes) legitimate sources. One website that gets cited multiple times (emo-fever.com) apparently no longer exists and a website called KidzWorld is cited? I'm gonna stick a little warning on there for now and maybe clean it up myself later. Alistoriv (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Paramore & MCR

My Chemical Romance and Paramore never were emo. Gerard Way (MCR) himself said the band wasnt emo, and hates teh idea that MCR ever was "emo". as for Paramore, just listen to the music, its not emo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danger Days Fabulous Killjoy (talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Just because the band members say their band is not emo does not mean they are not emo. We go off of reliable sources and there are many reliable sources that describe My Chemical Romance and Paramore as emo. You may not think they are not emo but there are many sources that say otherwise. Bowling is life (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox/lead

User:Statik N let's discuss the details we disagree on.

  • Infobox image (caption) – The lead already mentions Dashboard, but whichever image we choose to represent the genre, the caption should explain its significance to it. There are many prominent emo bands, so why are Dashboard worth singling out? This should be clear to the reader.
  • Cultural origins – If key bands of the second wave came from across the US (east coast, west coast, and midwest) isn't it easier to simply say that in the infobox and leave details for the text?
  • Emoviolence – According to the little bit of info we have on this term it is a fusion of screamo and powerviolence, definitely not a subgenre of emo. However, of the very few sources cited for this term, some seem to consider this more of a joke than a "genre". There is no evidence that there has ever been any emoviolence scene distinct from the relevant screamo scenes. Therefore I would oppose including this in infoboxes in general, beside there not being any direct association with emo.
  • Regional scenes – There is a convention of not linking the region here if there is no article with relevant info on its significance to the genre. It doesn't make sense to have one link to Midwest emo and three others to articles which don't mention emo at all.
  • Post-hardcore – Note that Rites of Spring and Embrace are also some of the first post-hardcore bands, preceded only by Big Black and Saccharine Trust, contemporaries to Squirrel Bait and Bitch Magnet. The two genres emerged side by side and the boundaries between them have been unclear ever since. Most major post-hardcore bands are also considered emo or screamo and vice-versa.
  • Washington, D.C. – It's already made clear that RoS and Embrace are of the DC hardcore scene, so there's no need to repeat it.
  • Shift in style – From what I gather from the article the key point of the shift wasn't the older generation of bands dying out (even though most pioneers disbanded before 1990) but new ones combining their style with other influences. The lead should only emphasise central issues.

Thanks for all your improvements to the article. I am looking forward to seeing emo/post-hardcore-related articles thrive in the future.--MASHAUNIX 00:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply. I was on vacation. Anyways, here are some things I will say.:
  • I believe that New Jersey, Central USA, and Long Island should be put in the regional scenes field because it is mentioned in the body that there are many emo bands from those places.
  • I do agree to remove Midwest emo from the cultural origins field but keep it in the regional scenes field. The reinvention of emo did NOT seem to begin in the Midwest United States. But the emo bands that did start the reinvention of emo are Jimmy Eat World (Arizona), Jawbreaker (New York), Weezer (California), and Sunny Day Real Estate (Seattle).
  • I'll remove emoviolence from the subgenres list.
  • I'm not sure about the Dashboard Confessional caption. I may or may not add more stuff to it.
Statik N (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Emo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Genres originated from

Can Math Rock be added in the subsequent origins of Emo due to key emo bands of the 90s often being accosiated with the genre. Dekai Averett (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

No evidence and only some bands are associated, so no. Adding to other topics.--MASHAUNIX 15:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Separate into 3 Separate articles

I think we should split Emo into three articles: Emo (emocore), Midwest Emo, and Emo (subculture). Midwest Emo is a subgenre of indie rock and math rock, while the original Emo is a subgenre of hardcore punk and post-hardcore. They are two completely different sounds that should be distinguished on separate pages.

The emo subculture should also be on a separate page because it has little to do with the music and has a lot of other things that have to do with it, such as fashion and rebelliousness. So I think we should make them three separate pages.SuperLuigi22 (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)SuperLuigi22

Also a lot of the stuff about modern pop punk-leaning emo should be moved to emo pop, but I'm not sure we have the sufficient sources.

emo kids

how to be emo be like jaron Campbell lol skinny jeans skater belts skater shoes flannel shirts mcr or other band shirts. alternative music is a key in being emo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C6A:74A0:4826:55DE:44E5:D398 (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Post emo

Should Post emo be added as a subgenre? Dekai Averett (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The article only cites five sources and the discussion over it's deletion makes it look like it's going to be deleted soon, but I think it should while the article exists. I see that you're attempting to improve it, I'll wish you good luck on that and will attempt to help if I can but it does seem like it'll be an uphill struggle.Issan Sumisu (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Emo revival

Does anybody else think that Emo revival could be it's own page similar to that of Midwestern emo? I feel like the section here doesn't do the revival justice and I think a page about The Emo revival (along with a section on The Screamo revival) would be good. Thoughts? Dekai Averett (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If you can find enough sources then go ahead.Issan Sumisu (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Emo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Weezer

They are not an emo band, and never have been an emo band. Why are people try to change the definition of emo to make it appear earlier than it was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.137.94.180 (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Well yeah, Weezer aren't an emo band but there are sources to say they are, so we either reach consensus, or they stay. Also, describing Weezer as an emo band wouldn't even change how long emo's exited Rites of Spring and Embrace are way older. Issan Sumisu (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Weezer isn't an emo band as they have made non emo music but many sources cite them as being Emo, atleast for their first two albums. They did have an influence on many emo acts that are considered more legitamite both musically and culturally. Dekai Averett (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No mention of...

This may be ridiculous and I can't believe I took the effort to do this. But I am incredulous. Why is there no mention of BRIGHT EYES or AT THE DRIVE IN!? AHH. Maybe I'm off-base but both those bands I feel were pivotal/hugely influential offshoots of early emo. That Omaha scene deserves some mention (Cursive too!) If you want a source just listen to the album Fevers and Mirrors a few times (also, it's called fevers and mirrors..) Also sorry for treating this as a forum I just need answers.

In addition, there need to be more of a mention of women in emo music! I feel like there is barely a mention of the ladies of the scene and they deserve recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogperson2007 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Bright Eyes are definitely just a folk-influenced indie band and I don't know if there's no sources to say they're emo either, and At The Drive-In are sourced as emo but a lot closer to being just a post-hardcore band, that's my insight into why they're not mentioned but if you can find sources that support you, then go ahead and add the info. Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2018

Add a link to the My Chemical Romance page. Screamototheextremo (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2018

45.249.184.74 (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Danski454 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Emo/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 10:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

  • You have quite a few dead links. Fixing them is not required for GA, but you may want to do so anyway; this link lists them. There are also quite a few badly constructed citations; you have "BBC - Error 404" as a link title (footnote 166), and also "Archived copy" (footnote 211). As I say, you don't have to fix these for GA, but it would be a kindness to the reader.
  • There are eleven illustrative music samples. I can understand that an article about a genre might require more than one or two samples to give the reader an understanding of the text, but I think this is well beyond what we can justify as fair use. Can you get it down to three, or at most four?  Done
    I see you've cut this to five, which is much better. The first two have captions indicating what it is about the genre that they illustrate. The other three don't -- they just indicate that the songs were successful. What is it about these samples that is necessary to the reader's understanding? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Also not an issue for GA, but just in case you want to fix it, you're inconsistent about using locations in your citations -- for example Blush (2001) gives the location as New York; Bryant (2014) gives no location.
  • What makes the following reliable sources? I'm not saying they're not, just that it's not apparent immediately.
    • blog.siriusxm.com -- blogs are not reliable sources for most things.
    • treblezine.com -- appears to be unpaid, per their about page, so it's hard to call it a professional site
    • files.nyu.edu/cch223/public/usa/albums/faith_subjecttochange.html -- you have this in archive.org but I can't get to any sort of about page. It looks like it's part of a set of personal pages, rather than a professional website of some kind.
    • iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring02/Laferrera/early.htm
    • mychannel957.com/awesome-mixtape-mashes-up-modern-pop-with-classic-emo-video/
      This was changed to mix957gr.com/awesome-mixtape-mashes-up-modern-pop-with-classic-emo-video/ -- same question about reliability for this site.
    • yellowisthenewpink.com
    • alterthepress.com
    • femalefirst.co.uk
    • pupfresh.com -- seems to be a blog
    • thursday.net, which doesn't appear to support the material it is cited for in any case
    • mic.com
    • rocknuts.net
    • popdust.com
    • hiphopdx.com
    • soundcloud.com
    • theringer.com
    • malaysiandigest.com
    • thedailyswarm.com

I'm going to pause the review till we're agreed on sources, since it could lead to substantial changes in the text if we had to remove some of these. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I looked at the sources. Some I confirmed reliable to myself long ago. A lot of them i removed because i never remembered confirming them reliable. Statik N (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I've struck the ones that have been removed. For the others, can you say why they are reliable sources for this article? I don't see enough evidence at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Statik N, are you planning to continue working on this article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
http://mix957gr.com/awesome-mixtape-mashes-up-modern-pop-with-classic-emo-video/ this is a reliable source actually. it's a radio station called WLHT-FM. Malaysian Digest is a Malaysia news website. they're credible. ringer.com is also reliable. hiphopdx is a magazine. Rocknuts.net seem reliable. besides, they do have .net in their name. i even examined their site to see how reliable they are and they seem pretty credible. The daily swarm is definitely reliable to me. they have staff and they have interviews. Statik N (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the sources a bit more closely:

  • WLHT-FM is going to be a reliable source for some purposes, I agree. Here you're using it to cite Blink-182, not otherwise known as an emo band, recorded "Adam's Song" in 1999. The source page is a dj commenting on a mix-tape, and it describes "Adam's Song" as emo. It doesn't seem to support "not otherwise known as an emo band". The paragraph it's in lists some early successful emo releases, but to include "Adam's Song" in a paragraph like that you'd need a source that said something to that effect. This source doesn't do that, and it's little more than a blog post; it really could only be used to support "Adam's Song is emo", and it's not a great source even for that.
  • Malaysian Digest seems to be online only, and there's nothing about editorial policy on the website. The page cited appears to be a myspace post, which doesn't inspire confidence. It's used to source a list of bands that emo kids listen to, but this is not a site that has a reputation for being authoritative about music, and I don't think it's a good source for this sort of information.
  • Rocknuts doesn't show any indication that it has editorial control, and it's not listed in the WP:ALBUMS list of reliable sources. Unless you can find evidence that this is a reliable site for information about music I don't think it qualifies. (You can post a note at WT:ALBUMS if you'd like to get more opinions on the reliability of the site; there are some knowledgeable people there.)
  • The Ringer is a Vox affiliate, on further digging, so it passes muster. I've struck this from the list above.
  • HipHopDX is also not listed by WP:ALBUMS, and the post you link to is more of a question posed to the readership than an article that could be used as a source.
  • The Daily Swarm: I can't find any page on the site that would tell me if this is a site with editorial control, paid staff, and reliable information, or just a handful of friends putting together a website.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I replaced the source for Adam's Song with a billboard article, which is a better source. also, i removed mentioning that blink-182 aren't emo. i decided the sentence only needs to mention that "Adam's Song" is an emo song. The Malaysian Digest is actually an online newspaper in Malaysia. I also replaced thedailyswarm with a better source. Rocknuts has a newsletter and headquarters. They also have a DMCA policy (https://rocknuts.net/dmca-policy/). Here are other links showing how Rocknuts are reliable. https://rocknuts.net/write-for-us/ (they pay those who write for them and they hire people) Statik N (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I've struck three of the points above. The Malaysian Digest seems to me to be the wrong kind of source for what you're using it for; I think it needs to go. The link showing Rocknuts pays is helpful; thanks. I'm still not sure about it; I'm going to post at WT:ALBUMS to ask for opinions. I'll continue with the review below while waiting for a response there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I replaced Malasyian Digest with other sources. Statik N (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I've struck that point. The only response at WT:ALBUMS about Rocknuts agreed that it was unreliable, so I'm afraid I still think you should remove it.
Sorry this has been moving slowly, but I've dealt with the other article I was reviewing, and I should have more time for this now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Reading through; I'll comment as I go. If you don't like any of my copyedits, just revert; if I feel strongly about any of them I'll comment here.

  • The first section starts with "Although". I can see why, but I think it would be better to start with a more definite start -- a reader who doesn't know anything about emo needs to know a little more before we should be qualifying our statements.
  • This section gives several quotes, but doesn't really provide a clear definition, or even a statement that there is no clear definition.
  • I also think there are too many quotes. We're supposed to summarize the sources, not just quote them to the reader.
  • The images on the right bunch up a bit on my screen, which is fairly wide. Can we drop one of those first three band pictures?
  • The sources I commented on above mostly looked unreliable to me regardless of what they were being used for, but a source that's reliable for some things isn't necessarily reliable for everything. You quote Sean Cureton to support the statement that Pet Sounds paved the way for emo; this is a pretty strong statement, especially given that it leads the history section. I think you need a general source for this; something like an encyclopedia of music, or a survey article published in a top quality source. As it happens I'm not sure why I didn't question audienceseverywhere.net first time around; it appears to be a group of likeminded people who write reviews, not a professional site.
  • Emo was an outgrowth of the early-1980s hardcore punk scene in Washington, D.C. as a reaction to the scene's violence and an extension of the politics espoused by Ian MacKaye of Minor Threat, who returned the music's focus from the community to the individual. There's a lot packed in here, and some of it needs more explanation. What violence? And what were these politics? And what does it mean to say MacKaye returned the music's focus to the individual? Why is this relevant?
  • breaking free of hardcore punk's self-imposed boundaries: what boundaries? Do you mean the musical conventions of hardcore punk? Those could be seen as boundaries; but why self-imposed? I see from the mention of "rigid constraints" in the next paragraph that that's probably the case, but a reader who knows little of emo or punk needs a bit more.
  • I'd trim the second half of the Azerrad quote -- after "bitterly detested" it adds nothing to the article.
  • Does McKaye give enough information to trace which issue of Thrasher the relevant article appeared in? If so it would be good to track that down. All the 1985 issues are online and readable at www.thrashermagazine.com, so it should be findable. I don't think you have to find it for GA, but it would be good to have it.
  • I'd cut the OED references. It seems clear that those citations post-date the actual usage, so it doesn't really tell us anything to know what the OED has.
  • Why do we have a sentence about Fugazi that essentially just says they're not relevant to the article?
  • to marry hardcore punk with the emotions of growing older.: I don't know what this means.
  • The paragraph starting "Several new bands reinvented emo" also mentions redefining emo, but it doesn't say what this reinvention or redefinition consisted of.
  • The quote from Greenwald about Sunny Day Real Estate and Jawbreaker is opaque -- it says nothing about the music, except that the two bands were completely unalike. What is this intended to convey?
  • Did you look at Everybody Hurts: An Essential Guide to Emo Culture, by Trevor Kelley & Leslie Simon? I can't tell how useful it would be from the Amazon reviews but it seems like it might be a useful resource. There's also Anthology of Emo edited by Tom Mullen (see here).
  • the aesthetics of emo also expanded into the mainstream and altered its perception: what do you mean by "altered its perception"?
  • What's the value of the quote from Greenwald that starts "If one definition..."? It seems like it's just saying those two bands were the main influence on later bands in the genre, but that's already been said in the previous paragraph. The following paragraph says it again: Andy Greenwald called Jawbreaker "the Rosetta Stone of contemporary emo"; what does this add? And the next paragraph says it yet again: awbreaker influenced later successful emo and pop-punk bands. At least the discussion of Schwarzenbach does explain how Jawbreaker's music was emo and what made it successful, but this is all a bit disorganized.
  • Unlike Jawbreaker, its members were accomplished musicians with good equipment, musical ambitions, intricate songwriting and a sweeping sound: needs a bit of rephrasing; we can't say someone was "a musician with intricate songwriting" or "a musician with a sweeping sound"; the former only applies to the songwriter, and would have to be rephrased anyway; the latter applies to the band, not the musicians.
  • Why is it noteworthy that "Seven" was played on MTV?
  • Known as Weezer and the Blue Album: not sure what this means. Is the album known as Weezer and the Blue Album? If so, shouldn't the whole phrase be in italics?
  • the word "emo" began to lose its vagueness and refer to romantic, emotionally-overbearing music: surely "overbearing" is the wrong word here? I'm not sure what is meant, but "overbearing" means "arrogant".
  • What's the value of the sentences about Sunny Day Real Estate's breakup at the end of the 1991-1994 section? How does this tell us about emo?
  • Sunny Day Real Estate's sound challenged other bands: what does this mean?
  • You mention Policy of 3 and Hoover as examples of bands that retained the earlier emo sound despite the "reinvention" of emo. This sentence is uncited, which is an issue, but if you cite it I have a question. Are they still considered emo bands? Were they considered emo then? If so it's a good example of the variation in definitions of emo; if not it indicates the definition changed, leaving them behind.
  • The list of midwest bands starting with "Chicago's Cap'n Jazz" is a solid mass of blue links, which makes it hard to read; it took me a second to realize that the fourth band on the list was called "Mineral", not "Austin, Texas' Mineral". I think it would be easier to read if you eliminated the towns, which aren't really necessary to make your point, and also eliminated the links to the states, which aren't that helpful. If someone wants to know where in Colorado Christie Front Drive are from they can click through to the band article.
  • Many of the bands had a distinct vocal style and guitar melodies, which was later called midwest emo: this says there was a style, but doesn't say what that style was. Can we be specific? If this refers to the style described by Greenwald's quote in the previous sentence, let's say so.
  • After the success of their multi-platinum debut, Pinkerton moved from the multi-platinum debut's sound to a darker, more-abrasive sound: can we avoid the repetition here?
  • The mention of bands incorporating post-rock and noise rock into emo doesn't seem to fit with anything else in the section. Was this still considered emo?
  • Jimmy Eat World's...music was largely obscured by the popularity of ska punk: this seems a strange claim. Why would ska punk, rather than any other genre, be the reason why one particular emo band failed to be more successful?
  • Its diversity of bands and musical styles indicated that emo was more of a shared aesthetic than a genre, and the series helped define the term in the underground-music community. This seems concise and insightful. Currently the article starts "Emo is a rock music genre"; if there's support in the sources for this statement, it would be good to move some version of this into the lead. It's a strong statement, though, so it would have to be supported by more than just Greenwald.
  • Why do we have the long blockquote from Greenwald that starts "As the '90s wore to a close..."? I don't see anything here that couldn't be effectively said in our own words. The same goes for the "In a world..." quote further down.
  • Can we get more context for the Deep Elm compilation series? Was it influential or important? Why are we mentioning it?
  • Suggesting trimming or eliminating the quote from Greenwald about Clarity and rephrasing some or all of it. Given the album's relative commercial failure, and the fact that this is a 2003 comment on a 1999 album, I think we need more support from other sources before we can quote a single source with such high praise. You do give the date of the quote, which is necessary to put this in context for the reader, but I'm concerned it's undue weight as it stands.
  • I'm doubtful that the 1997-2002 section is as thorough as it should be. I'd summarize the section's current structure as a comment on going mainstream and the reaction to that; Deep Elm's compilations; Jimmy Eat World; Drive-Thru's roster; Vagrant's roster. Is this really what a history of this five-year period should say?
  • The quote from Greenwald in the 2002-2010 section essentially says that his take on emo conflicts with what "magazine readers in the summer of '02" would have read. Fair enough, but if that means there's another take on emo in 2002 in reliable sources, we need to cover it in this article, and not just via Greenwald's quote.
  • Take a look at this section of the article on heavy metal; it's a featured article. The paragraphs are more than just listings of bands and their successes in the genre; we get background, reasons, and context. "First important band", "By 1980, NWOBHM had broken into the mainstream", "first generation of metal bands was ceding the limelight", "a metal scene began to develop in Southern California", "visually distinguished by", "characteristically emphasized", "metal artists benefited from...MTV", "One of the seminal events" -- these are all general statements about the genre. I'm concerned that the emo article does much less of this, and spends more time just enumerating successful bands. The information from Greenwald helps with this problem a good deal, but it doesn't go far enough, and it's only one source; plus it doesn't cover the last fifteen years. As I said, you do have this sort of context -- e.g. "A darker, more aggressive style of emo was also becoming popular"; but look at the paragraph before that -- what does it give the reader other than a list of bands and albums?

Statik N: I'm going to pause the review here. There's a lot of good material here and I can see a lot of work has been done on the article, but I don't think it meets the comprehensiveness criterion yet. I am inclined to fail it at the moment but will wait for your comments. FYI, I've ordered a copy of Greenwald and will take a look through when it gets here to get a sense of whether it could be used to plug some of the holes, but it won't help with anything after 2003, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie: Thanks for the feedback. I actually am able to preview the Greenwald book on the internet apparently. I'm able to do that with some books. I added more to the mainstream section by the way. Statik N (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you ready for me to go through the list of points I raised above and see which ones are addressed? I can see you've done a lot of work but I was waiting in case you weren't finished. And can you comment on the point I raised just above, about the lack of a general approach? Do you have sources that let you tell a general narrative about the genre -- sources that are give the perspective of a historial survey, not just coverage of individual bands or albums? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
What do you think of the article now? It might need a few more improvements. Statik N (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Random uninvolved editor note - some of the prose isn’t the best, devolving into excessive/repetitive chart listings. It doesn’t read well, and there’s certainly room for trimming. (Is it really necessary to note occurrences like Taking Back Sunday charting around the #180 mark, for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Sergecross73. Statik N, I just finished the other GA I've been working on and I hope to take another look at this tomorrow. Can you tell me if you think everything in the list above has been addressed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I did everything on the list. I still need to make sure if there are any errors I need to fix. I'll try thinking of some improvements for the article. Thanks. Statik N (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Second arbitrary break

You made a lot of changes, and it's a long list above, so rather than go through the list I decided look through the article as it currently stands. I also decided to spotcheck a few citations: just looking at the Greenwald quotes (format is footnote/page, so 15/30 means footnote 15, referring to page 12 of Greenwald):

  • 15/12: doesn't say that Minor Threat influenced early emo bands.
  • 17/9-11: doesn't support scene in Washington, D.C. as something different from the violent part of the Washington, D.C. hardcore scene: those pages describe Minor Threat but don't say they're different in that way. The same cite is used to support the caption for the "Remainder" sample, but it doesn't give any of the information in the caption.
  • 27/15: cites The Washington, D.C. emo scene lasted only a few years, and by 1986, most of emo's major bands (including Rites of Spring, Embrace, Gray Matter and Beefeater) had broken up, but Greenwald doesn't say most of this -- he doesn't give dates for the bands breaking up, and he doesn't say this was the emo scene; he says it was the roots of emo. He doesn't comment on whether this is the end of an era in emo; he's talking specifically about Rites of Spring.
  • 28/15-17: cited for However, its ideas and aesthetics spread quickly across the country through a network of homemade zines, vinyl records and hearsay; the last seven words of this are taken directly from the source, so that would have to be paraphrased. My main concern here, though, is that the source doesn't support "quickly", nor does it say that the "ideas and aesthetics" are what spread -- Greenwald says "The spread of 'emocore'", so he's referring to the music.

This is four real problems with just the first six cites to Greenwald. This is enough to fail the article, and I'm going to go ahead and fail it, but not just for this reason. Here's what I think needs to be done to get the article to the next level.

  • More encyclopedic sources. I mentioned a couple of possible sources above; I don't know how useful they'd be but for a really broad article like this you need to be in command of as much of the material as possible. This is the number one problem with the article, and the most important reason I am failing it.
  • Sources outside the music press. Try getting hold of some of the articles that come up in Google Scholar when you search for "emo culture hardcore" for example; searching for "emo picciotto" and "emo mackaye" brings up more, and there are no doubt scores more to find. This sort of source is harder to work with because many of these papers will be too specific, but you may find some general material.
  • Accurate representation of the sources. I think the errors I identified above are just slight carelessness, but being precise about exactly what a source can be used for is Wikipedia's main quality control mechanism. Often I find that making myself stop to think about exactly what a source really says leads me to understand the material better; the worst thing to do is to try to find a source that supports what you already want to say. (Not that I'm saying you're doing that; I'm just pontificating.)
  • The media files don't make it clear why they're included, in at least three cases. The question you have to answer is: "What will a reader fail to understand about emo if they don't listen to this clip?"
  • The writing could be improved -- it doesn't have to be FA quality, but sentences like Emo, which began as a post-hardcore subgenre, was part of the 1980s hardcore punk scene in Washington, D.C. as something different from the violent part of the Washington, D.C. hardcore scene are clunky, and there are other examples.
  • The problem I mentioned earlier is still present -- yes, chart listings and band dates and album releases are important, but they are elements of a story; they're not the narrative itself. Take a look at the heavy metal music article I linked to above, and you'll see there's a difference between how bands and songs are mentioned there, and how they're mentioned in this article.

That's enough; I don't want to labour the point. There's a lot of good material here, but the article is not there yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2018

Remove My Chemical Romance from the 2nd paragraph. 2604:2D80:8823:841D:1DC6:DD56:50C2:5EFC (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

 Question: Why? DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: My Chemical Romance is mentioned over 20 times in this article. I see no reason to remove it from the lead section. Feel free to reopen this request with more information if you would like. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The lead section thise not follow Wikipedis`s norms..maybe someone could change that? Until then, I added the template message. ~SML • TP 00:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

King Face

Can someone managing this page please remove the band King Face (Kingface) from the list of “associated with the movement”[18] [21] bands from DC during the inception of Emo? I was the bass player in King Face and I can assure you our “association” was simply being in a band at the same time, and being friends with the other bands listed. That’s it. KingFace66 (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. There were two sources cited; I have one and it doesn't mention King Face, and the other is searchable via Google Books and also doesn't appear to mention King Face. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks much, Mike! Much appreciated! - Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingFace66 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I removed "Precursors" section

Emo is typitaly guitar-oriented genre, but noone recognize beatles's Sgt. Pepper was second emo album of all time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonsun147258 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2019

42.110.161.55 (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2019

Other son check them out there 2019 emo Emo ik (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Terminology

I believe that a terminology section similar to that found on the Screamo page could benefit this page and could also address “real emo” debates and the mainstreams perception of the term. This can be put in the pages Controversy section. Dekai Averett (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought maybe MCR was the first emo band, but in the 90s the band the calling had an emo vibe, with the song whereever you may go. Maybe it should be included.

Juice Wrld

Somebody add something about Juice Wrld to the rap section cause he definitely belongs with X and Peep as pioneering artists Howamisupposedtochooseausername (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleted as it was spam garbage. 20:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2020

Could someone insert the Punk template here? 73.54.195.214 (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Template:Punk is present at the bottom. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

Please remove the section that states that Pet Sounds is considered by some to be the first emo album. One person writing an article is not enough evidence for such an absurd claim. In other words, it's an insufficient citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:7B40:742:AD2D:47D:799A:8B1B (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2021

at no point did those involved in the DC hardcore scene during the time of rites of spring ever refer to their music as emotional hardcore or emo core this is false 192.132.96.19 (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

That's never claimed in the article. The second paragraph in the "Origins" section mentions four times that the musicians in the scene didn't like the term. Issan Sumisu (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2021

92.86.51.234 (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

i would like the picture of the article to be changed. XXXTENTATION is NOT emo. You can instead add a picture of an emo like (My chemical romance, Green day etc) or add a picture of an actual emo person (not "alt" people or "e-girls". Thank you!

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2021

Ello can I edit this please JuanLeonlovesmuffins (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dogperson2007.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2022

Could someone put the Rock music template here? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. It already has too many footer navboxes, with punk and hardcore punk on top of alternative rock. The two punk templates are already one too many. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Since when was there a limit to how many navboxes a page could have? 47.36.25.163 (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like to remove the fragment that says "The emo subculture is stereotypically associated with the socially oppressed, sensitivity, misanthropy, introversion and angst, as well as depression, self-harm and suicide." Emo is a type of music and subculture, but this statement creates harmful stereotypes by linking the emo subculture to mental illnesses like depression and struggles with self-harm and suicide. Anyone can experience depression, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, etc, it is NOT exclusive to emo people, and not all emo people engage in self-harm or are depressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.132.114 (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"情感核" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 情感核 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 22#情感核 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

"Emo(girls)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Emo(girls) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 22#Emo(girls) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization of the article "The" in musical band names

Hello,

I recently came across the Wikipedia page for "Emo", a style of music: [1], and I noticed in the very first paragraph that the article "the" is not capitalized for the bands "The Promise Ring" and "The Get Up Kids". I have made edits to capitalize the article "the", but it keeps getting reverted by user @Issan Sumisu. I have provided multiple explanations as to why I believe my edit is correct; however, this does not satisfy user @Issan Sumisu. Is it possible to get someone outside the two of us, who could resolve this editing dispute?

My arguments and sources for the edits include:

1) The Wikipedia Manual of Style was cited by @Issan Sumisu. However, using the same MOS: THEMUSIC, in the example "She released a cover version of 'A Brand New Day' from The Wiz.", the article "the" in the artist's name "The Wiz" is kept capitalized.

2) The band names were previously made as links to their Wikipedia article pages, and thus, are titles of not just the band name, but also their respective Wikipedia article pages. If the band names were not made in to links, or at least the word "the" was not included as part of the link, this could be analyzed differently.

3) The same Wikipedia page for "Emo" in the subsection "Fashion and subculture" - [2] - provides a list of band names with the article "the" capitalized, such as "The Used", "The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus", and "The All-American Rejects". Therefore, capitalizing the article "the" for the band names listed in the beginning paragraph of the "Emo" Wikipedia article provides a manner of consistency.

4) In the Wikipedia "Naming Conventions" page: [3], the article "the" in the band names can certainly fit the category of "definite article", as explained in section "Names of groups, sports teams and companies".

5) The official Twitter page for "The Promise Ring" - [4] - shows in the Twitter page description, that the band also considers the article "the" a definite article, and thus, capitalizes it: "The official twitter feed of the band, The Promise Ring."


Ace theMaster (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC) Ace_theMaster

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo#Fashion_and_subculture
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(definite_or_indefinite_article_at_beginning_of_name)
  4. ^ https://twitter.com/thepromisering
MOS:THEMUSIC says explicitly to not capitalise the definite article at the beginning of a band name when used mid-sentence. The Wiz is used an example because it isn't a band name, it's a musical. MOS:THEMUSIC says that titles (of musicals, albums, songs, etc) should capitalise the definite article, which is why that's mentioned. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) as you cited it, isn't about mid-sentence definite article capitalisation, it's about whether to include the definite article in article titles. This isn't relevant because we are including the definite article, the discussion is whether to capitalise it. I don't have much of an opinion on this honestly, I'm just trying to keep to the manual of style for consistency across the site. MOS:MUSIC has its own talk page, as that is is the route of this rule, you'd be more likely to get such a site-wide change there, rather than on a fairly obscure genre page (in the grand scheme of things at least). Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
"I'm just trying to keep to the manual of style for consistency across the site." - I can respect that. What I was trying to get at is the MOS:THEMUSIC does indeed state that the article should not be capitalized mid-sentence in a continuous prose. However, I feel like when the text starts having a list of things mid-sentence, then it breaks the continuous prose in the sentence structure. And thus, since the continuous prose is broken, I think that the articles should be capitalized.
.
MOS:THEMUSIC Example: Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues.
.
Text from "Emo" article: By the mid-1990s, bands such as Braid, the Promise Ring, and the Get Up Kids emerged from the burgeoning Midwest emo scene...
.
Once more, but to point out what I mean: By the mid-1990s, bands such as LIST ITEM 1, LIST ITEM 2, and LIST ITEM 3 emerged from the burgeoning Midwest emo scene...
.
I feel that a list inside a sentence creates a special case that calls for the article capitalization. However, I will follow your recommendation, and pose this suggestion on the MOS:MUSIC talk page and see what kind of comments I will receive.
P.S. - Yeah, a different person pointed out earlier to me that "The Wiz" isn't a band name, but, in fact, a musical. I must have read through that example too quickly. Ace theMaster (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emo/Archive_9&oldid=1224619890"