Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Post-hardcore/Archive 1

Archive 1

MfD Result Notice

This page was the subject of an MfD debate closed on 2 October 2006. The result was keep. --Xoloz 15:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Iceness 17:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources for aspects of emo music

General

• In Emo music extreme emphasis is placed on raw emotion, which is conveyed through heartbroken and sometimes angry lyrics and through emotionally-charged chord progressions and high-energy beats [1].
• The music is designed to be highly dramatic, taking the listener through a series of powerful ups and downs with constant lyrical reminders of the heartbreak and pain the music is meant to reflect. Harmony is used a lot in emo, particularly to accent certain words and concepts, and emo music on the whole tends to emphasize melody and lyricism [2].

Guitar

• soft arpeggiated guitars mixed with heavy distorted guitars within the song [3]
• One of the most recognizable and universal elements of emo shows up in the guitar sound of the octave chord. Octave chords give this style a high-pitched, driving urgency and a very rich texture [4].
• Emo often cuts the rhythm guitar suddenly, opting for a more intimate organ, bells or other softer, more contemplation-provoking type of sound [5].

Tempo

• drastic change from soft slow melodies into heavy guitarworks (with an increasing temp) and then back to the original quiet part [6].
• Epic-length songs that build up very slowly to a climax where vocal style resembles crying. Songs of this type can be extremely powerful and moving [7].
• alternately loud and quiet musical parts, and shifty dynamics also known as "time changes" [8].
• most of these bands play extremely fast, and introduce the "chaos" concept to hardcore [9].

Vocals

• soft airy vocals, followed by screaming vocals along with the change in the mood of the song [10].
• The vocal style is very intense, ranging from normal singing in the quiet parts to a kind of pleading howl to gut-wrenching screams to actual sobbing and crying [11].

Lyrics

• Emo lyrics are generally very poetic and range from topics of lost love to religious beliefs or other emotional subjects [12].
• Lyrics tend toward somewhat abstract poetry, and are usually low in the mix and hard to decipher. Record inserts have lyrics, but often so disorganized and haphazard that they're very difficult to read [13].

Live shows

• Live emo bands tend to play with backs to the audience during the quiet parts. During the loud exploding parts, the musicians have a tendency to jump and shake unpredictable and knock things over - especially mic stands. Combine this with the fact that the singers often fail to make it to the mic in time to sing, and decide just to scream at the absolute top of their lungs wherever they are when the time comes, means that often entire shows will pass without the audience being able to hear the vocals. If, however, the band has a lot of screaming during the quiet parts, this can be an extremely powerful tactic [14].

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceness (talk • contribs) 10:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Project name

Can we please move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo music? I think it would make much more sense. --íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 12:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's posible to re-direct, then yes. I think I just didn't notice I didn't add "Music" to the project title when I started it. Can you do it? --Iceness 13:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. --íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 15:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks - less confusion now. Iceness 16:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Updates To Positive Factors Sub-Article

I've used four sources to start classifying Emo music by what it consists of - I've attached reference link to each factor I've listed in here. Any feedback? I didn't copy/paste exactly word-by-word from the mentioned web-sites, rather summed up with my own phrases. --Iceness 16:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Project icon

I picked the current one from a random google search preview - I could find any copyright notes for it neither a link from a site it originally came from. Any suggestions which image to choose as an icon if this one doesn't comply with Fair Use policy? --Iceness 19:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be fine. --íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 21:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

But if possible, you might want to upload a higher resolution pic. --íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 21:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, looks like it wasn't free use. But I'm not really good at knowing which pics are free use or not. --íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 23:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. --B2T2 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. --B2T2 00:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Is this project really a good idea? Even the article on Emo (music) says "use of the term has been the subject of much debate." And there's already Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music. WikiProject's aren't clubs.. unless an emo- specific project can really add something that isn't a violation of NPOV and OR.. I'd say this isn't the best idea for a WikiProject. --Ned Scott 09:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The "use of the term has been the subject of much debate" is exactly the reason of starting the project - to draw the line for the genre nobody has any idea about. Wiki article on emo doesn't give any definition of what emo music is, and wiki project on punk doesn't even have emo as it's sub-genre. --Iceness 00:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's considered original research. --Ned Scott 00:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes but, "Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages". --Iceness 06:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

However, the rule regarding NPOV applies anywhere. And, if there is no existing agreed-upon definition of the term, then any attempt to define it would by definition qualify as being an attempt to establish one point of view on the matter. I strongly recommend rethinking the project page. --Badbilltucker 23:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. NPOV applies to articles only. The whole reason talk pages are there is so that people can share their POV. Also, just because we want to come to a conclusion on what Emo IS, doesn't mean to say that we're dictating what Emo is. There is a difference between the two.

As for Ned's comments, nobody ever said that this project was a "club", there are serious aims behind this project and I'd thank you not to attempt to cheapen them by making such derogatory accusations. Despite what you seem to think, the existance of the punk project doesn't, hasn't, and never will solved any disputes over Emo, ever, nor does it's existance negate the legitimacy of this project, so perhaps you'd care to study the situation more carefully before making a judgement. The aim of this project as I am given to understand it, is to provide a means of dealing with the disputed nature of Emo on wikipedia, by tackling each issue on an individual basis and reaching a consensus on that issue - hopefully some of what is achieved here can go on to be policy. I see nothing objectionable about reaching a consensus on the issues surrounding any subject, let alone emo, and I find it strange that you do. For some reason Ned, you seem determined to end this project, and I'd wager that you've got a personal agenda. Right or wrong, I feel I must remind you that unless you really have a reason to say something (like if you've actually come across something you object to, something that you could cite if need be), you should generally keep it to yourself. --▫Bad▫harlick♠ 06:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This project is legit

Following on from a previous discussion, I would like to propose that we make it clear that wasting our time, or attempting to have this project removed, by arguing the validity of the project will not be tolerated. The improvement of articles on Wikipedia does not involve attempting to end projects just because you dislike them for no apparent (or given) reason. Therefore I suggest we compose a charter or statement, to make it clear what our mission is, and why we're here. In it we should cite the MfD keep vote as proof that there is a consensus on the validity of this project. --▫Bad▫harlick♠ 06:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Emo subgenres

Hi. This is to request that members of this project look at Emo (music) and Hardcore emo and, if they really are different genres, try to rephrase the introductions etc to make it clear what the relationship is between them.

As it stands, the articles are candidates for a merge IMO, but not so clearly that I'd be confident to propose it. But that's another option.

There's also been a proposal to rename Hardcore emo to Emocore, but the proposal was not properly made or justified and attracted no support that I can see. Emocore appears to me to be a neologism, but if that's wrong we can open a proper discussion on this proposed move, and I'd be glad to help. --Andrewa 14:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. --Badbilltucker 17:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

New Userbox?

Hello,Just wondering,do you think that we need a new user box for this Project? I just thought about this because I was looking at the project page and it seems like the picture on the userbox is not showing-up. Please tell me what you think we should do. --Musicfreak84 22:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

HIM is Emo?

HIM isn't because they are gothic. If they are then so should Marilyn Manson. --Bombtom 11:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

octave chords

do you people not actually know anything at all about emo which has been locked from editing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Androol (talk • contribs) 05:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Reminder

Could I please remind you all that Wikipedia is a neutral site, and not a forum for discussion on whether a band is emo. It's an arguement that can't be won, as there are always people who occupy both sides of the debate. It is only concluded with sheer weight of numbers, which is not the way Wikipedia is run. Thus , the /Discussionpage should be deleted.

Instead. your policy should be to cover all the bands who are referenced as emo, from AFI to The Used. Within reason, of course - ignore the morons who think it's funny to tag Iron Maiden as emo on Last.fm. --Jamdav86 18:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Clarification

I think it would be a wise choice to create a new article, emo (slang). This would serve to distinguish the dual meaning of the word - a subgenre of alternative rock, characterised by musical and lyrical styles, or a word that high school kids use as freely as they use 'fag'.

examples:

• Sunny Day Real Estate - emo (music)
• Panic! at the Disco - emo (slang)
• self-injury - emo (slang)

etc, etc

--Clinton (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Going back through the records here, it looks like that was once the case. If so, why is that no longer the case? Although the style of music may be the influence for the silly slang term, they aren't the same thing - I don't see the Sisters of Mercy page having links to Gothic fiction, even if that is where the term Goth subculture came from. --Clinton (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

American Football

American Football (band)American Football should be added to this project. --Tholcomb (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Are The Used emo?

The purpose of this discussion is to generate consensus about whether The Used fall under the category of "emo".

Arguments for The Used being emo

• The Used refers to themselves as an emo band, their subject matter is emo (in that it discusses death, suicide etc), their music is guitar based alternative rock centralising on "dark" chord structures and the band dresses in emo fashion. It's not a far stretch to consider that they're an emo band, since they consider themselves to be. --linca^linca 08:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• unfortunately because "emo" has become such a derogatory term and is commonly used incorrectly, and almost leads to a new definition. in the same sense that "ass" does not actually mean "butt," "emo" (as far as a musical genre is concerned) does not actually mean screaming, songs about death and dying, songs about cutting, long dark hair covering one eye, tight jeans, etc. but because so many people continue to use the word incorrectly, it becomes popular "knowledge", and then becomes new word. so under a slang definition (or a word more suited for the "urban dictionary" than an actual dictionary or encyclopedia) then the used could be considered emo. --Fezmar9 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have previously laid out my arguments for why they are emo here. I'll cut n paste it to keep the debate in one place:

“ They clearly have alternative influences, but those are superseded by their emo, or "emotive hardcore" style. Anyone who makes the claim that they are just alternative has most likely only heard their singles. The fact that they are first and foremost an emo band is apparent on songs like "Maybe Memories", "Say Days Ago", "A Box Full of Sharp Objects", "Take It Away", "Listening", "Sound Effects and Overdramatics", "I'm a Fake", etc. Alternative proponents often point to songs like "The Taste of Ink", "Blue and Yellow", "Greener with the Scenery", "Noise and Kisses", "All That I've Got", "Cut up Angels", etc. This doesn't hold, as those songs are constructed like power ballads, and maintain the emo sound, and screaming. Which brings me to the biggest reason why they aren't alternative -- the vocal style. Alternative rock doesn't have the kind of screaming Bert does, which is influenced by emo/post-hardcore. While their latest album took a turn in the direction of alternative, the emo is still apparent, and their b-sides are a lot like their older songs. I would call their latest effort "emo-prog" or "emo-crossover", like MCR's The Black Parade album.

To sum it up, The Used have songs where their alternative influences are quite apparent, yet they still end up sounding like themselves, and emo/screamo. They have songs that are straight up hardcore, softer acoustic ones(every emo band has a few), alt-rock influenced power ballads, and the rest of their material would fall somewhere in between. Basically, they take emo/screamo and make it their own, sounding like nothing else, and that leads to confusion.

”

Lets try to keep this argument to their sound and not image, eventhough The Used qualifies as emo based on that. Arguments can be made based on their sound alone. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Arguments against The Used being emo

• The Used is not emo, they are post punk but have a softer playing style, yet others that play a lot like that aren't considered emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanny77 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• No The Used, is not emo music, it is rock/punk. Some of there songs relate to death etc but some songs actually have meanings to the band or the lead singer Bert and generally songs tell a story whether the stories are fiction or truth. I don't think a band would purposely sing about death. Look at the used image they don't act emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.16.50 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• in the recent decade, EMO MUSIC has been confused with an EMO IMAGE or STEREOTYPE. emo music is not a sound produced by any instrument, but rather a lyrical element conveying a strong emotion. although almost all songs include an emotion, it is specifically emo music that effectively gets the feeling across via a calculated use of words. the used does not produce songs in this fashion and therefor should not be considered emo. many bands get unfairly and unreasonably dumped into this genre in a derogatory sense because of their image. other such bands include: aiden, my chemical romance, silverstein, and taking back sunday. the music that the used creates is of a punk and or rock nature, occasionally mixed with some darker elements and images. --Fezmar9 (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Punk Rock

Somebody requested on the punk rock talk page that someone write a (really well-cited) paragraph about Emo for that article. Does anyone here want to do that? --P4k 19:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Punk Rock is not just music it is a life style. It is almost like being emo. Some of the styles are the same but not as hard core as being emo. By. RDL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.173.16 (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

emo is a subgenre of punk not hardcore

straightedge, posi, power violence, etc. are all subgenres of hardcore. emo may have come out of the hardcore scene i.e. the first bands were from people who had been in hardcore bands but that doesnt mean its a subgenre of it. Embrace could not sound any further from Minor Threat. now technically bands like Mohinder, Heroin, Iconoclast, etc. are hardcore-emo which is actually a subgenre of both hardcore and emo but these bands came way too long after the fact to open up the main emo article stating thats its a subgenre of hardcore. Consistently people say that its a part of hardcore as a reaction to people talking about how "gay" emo is. so the reaction is "no way man its HARDCORE or of course EMOTIVE hardcore." invariably its their defense. thats why this description is so popular, not because its grounded in fact.

hardcore emo is a subgenre of both emo and hardcore. emo is a subgenre of punk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Androol (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Most emo people are not gay, and i have only met one that was and I have met a numorus amout of emo's. So it is just a popular misconseption. By: RDL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.173.16 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Genres in infoboxes

There's currently an important discussion going on about the removal of genre fields in band and album infoboxes. You can read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box? and provide any opinions you may have. --WesleyDodds (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning Up

This is my 2 cents, I checked the list of emo artists. Boy, I was pissed off. More than half of those artists aren't REAL emo artists. AFI??? Cute Is What We Aim For??? I give up. There are too many idiots out there talking about "Emo" to get the truth out. I would bet quit a bit that half of you here are little girls with their hair dyed pink who worship Paramore and MCR. BTW neither of those bands are even close to "Emo"(do they sound anything like Rites Of Spring or Sunny Day Real Estate? NO!). It's really frustrating when all you need to do is get ppl to listen to the emo diaries put out all the time by Deep Elm Records, but there isn't even an article for the compilation. It's so fucking heartbreaking because my favorite genre is down the trash. gone. wiped out by slutty little fangirls. You people here need to do some serious reforming before you will ever be close to authentic. Emo is not about lyrics, crying, or cutting yourself. It isn't even about emotional lyrics and singing. It is easy to pick out an emo song, for they sound like nothing else. And for the assholes who know nothing about what they are talking about and don't listen to me, here are some songs you need to listen to. If you are ever in doubt about whether a song is "Emo" or not, compare them to these songs:

Artist Title

• Sunny Day Real Estate - Seven
• Sunny Day Real Estate - In Circles
• Jimmy Eat World - Rockstar
• Jimmy Eat World - Clarity
• Texas Is The Reason - Antique
• The Promise Ring - Nothing Feels Good
• Further Seems Forever - Snowbirds And Townies
• Further Seems Forever(FSF) - Vengance Factor (BTW I wouldn't consider Dashboard Confessional "Emo", music is too different from Chris's other band FSF)
• Last Days Of April - Nothing's Found
• Starmarket - My Part
• Pohgoh - Friend X
• Rites of Spring - For Want Of

Those were some real emo songs that I could think of off the top of my head. Maybe what I'm saying will get through to some of you. I can only hope and pray.... --Samushi101 (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The List of emo artists is for bands that have been referred to as "emo" in reliable sources. I'm pissed off about it too, but there's nothing I can do. If you want to "clean up" the articles, I suggest you stick around because we will need your expertise. However, one thing that troubles me about your comment is that you deny third wave emo. Excluding pop punk and alternative rock bands that have been referred to as such, there really are bands today that make emo music and take it to another level. Sure, they don't sound exactly like the early emo, but music changes over time. The hardcore of the 80s will not sound like the hardcore of today. Many of today's emo bands are heavier than the 'indie emo' of the 90s, and sound more like the original emo. --Pwnage8 (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the "Third Wave Emo" as just an add on to second wave, when you talk about "third wave" I think of the "Scene" bands such as Panic! At The Disco, Fall Out Boy, Paramore, and such, these bands are definitely NOT the "emo" that I knew. The only "Third Wave" bands that I would classify as "Emo" include Further Seems Forever and maybe Dashboard. There are probably more REAL third wave bands out there( That I just haven't discovered yet =/ ), but they are overshadowed by this "Scene" stuff going on. --Samushi101 (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

PATD, FOB, and Paramore are not emo. Third wave bands include The Used, Blindside, Silverstein, From First to Last, Glassjaw, etc. I'm pretty broad when it comes to defining what emo is, but the first three bands you mentioned are pop punk. 'Emo' has been incorrectly assigned to certain bands, such as the ones you brought up. Now if only you can find a reliable source that says that. Maybe look for some. That would be a better approach than making personal attacks towards other editors. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I know PATD, FOB, and Paramore aren't emo, but they were at some point, and may still be, on the list of emo bands as created by this project as far as I know. The Used I don't think are Emo, the music just doesn't fit, this is my opinion though. I am very picky about what I call "emo", mostly because of the widespread confusion on the topic. And when did I make a personal attack against someone? I'm not trying to defend myself, if I did, I apologize, I didn't mean any specific harm or hate, please bear in mind that I am relatively new to Wikipedia and am not as educated in policy as I probably should be. --Samushi101 (talk) 07:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"I would bet quit a bit that half of you here are little girls with their hair dyed pink who worship Paramore and MCR.", "It's so fucking heartbreaking because my favorite genre is down the trash. gone. wiped out by slutty little fangirls. You people here need to do some serious reforming before you will ever be close to authentic. Emo is not about lyrics, crying, or cutting yourself. It isn't even about emotional lyrics and singing.", "And for the assholes who know nothing about what they are talking about and don't listen to me, here are some songs you need to listen to." That's what I'd call personal attacks. Here at Wikipedia, we comment on content, not the contributor. This is not a place to blow off steam like that. Wikipedia is not a battleground or forum. Your definition of emo would be second wave and nothing else, it seems. That's fine, but music evolves over time, and you can't expect a genre to stay the same. The hardcore of today does not sound like the original hardcore. Even rap has changed. Rest assured, I am not a fangirl. It's not worth quitting a wikiproject based on the members, because everyone has something to offer, and that includes you. This project has been stagnant lately, and I'm the one who "revived" it (look how many people signed up after me), although it needs some work to really take flight. I do hope you'll stick around. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

An article in need: Rites of Spring (band)

The article for Rites of Spring (band) has been a mess for a while (people are constantly redirecting it, deleting stuff, and trying to delete it). Can someone help me keep an eye on it? --Emotional Wiki Dude (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Currently, it's at Rites of Spring. I have added it to my watchlist and will be keeping an eye out for these things. --Pwnage8 (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Emo-Pop

A new genre? All Music Guide: Emo-Pop Or a way to separate the new emo bands from the old? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.61.168 (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Is My Chemical Romance emo?

The purpose of this discussion is to generate consensus on whether My Chemical Romance falls under the "emo" category.

Arguments for My Chemical Romance being emo

• Im sorry but to me they sound emo and look emo. Also there are sources, look at VH1s site All music guide, MTV, MTV2. And i believe but an not sure that they have been listed as emo in magasines such as Rolling Stone and Blender —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.214.229.81 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

They seem emo to you because you're an elitist. They are supposed to look dark, to fit the songs they sing. They are NOT emo because they have a sense of humor, emo doesn't. Emo is all about whiny candyasses complaining about their life. Those trades you mention list Evanescence as "metal" or "gothic rock" but that doesn't make that true either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Beavises (talk • contribs) 00:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Easy there big trucker, no one here is being elitist. Basically, I'm of the opinion that if a band is willing to either define themselves as emo, or a majority of their fan base identifies with that youth culture, it's safe to say that the band in question can be considered a part of it as well --Threatis 23:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• According to this, MCR may, IMO, meet these qualifactions as an emo band;
  • In Emo music extreme emphasis is placed on raw emotion, which is conveyed through heartbroken and sometimes angry lyrics and through emotionally-charged chord progressions and high-energy beats [15].
  • The music is designed to be highly dramatic, taking the listener through a series of powerful ups and downs with constant lyrical reminders of the heartbreak and pain the music is meant to reflect. Harmony is used alot in emo, particularly to accent certain words and concepts, and emo music on the whole tends to emphasize melody and lyricism [16].
  • drastic change from soft slow melodies into heavy guitarworks (with an increasing temp) and then back to the original quiet part [17].
  • Epic-length songs that build up very slowly to a climax where vocal style resembles crying. Songs of this type can be extremely powerful and moving (definetly in their first album) [18].
  • alternately loud and quiet musical parts, and shifty dynamics also known as "time changes" [19].
  • most of these bands play extremely fast, and introduce the "chaos" concept to hardcore [20].
  • Lyrics tend toward somewhat abstract poetry, and are usually low in the mix and hard to decipher. Record inserts have lyrics, but often so disorganized and haphazard that they're very difficult to read [21].

Feel free to debate. --íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 01:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The only think I would have to say is that some of those sources I would not say are reliable. I am not saying what you are saying is wrong, but rather I don't know if some of the sources could be trusted, especially the Angelfire ones. Also, I am not sure if this discussion should be going on anymore since we are now doing the sourced method for the subgenres as Emo is not the main genre of My Chemical Romance (and emo is listed as a possible sub genre). Also, I do not think that the lyrics in any of the albums could be described as "crying" or anything like that but rather desperation and maybe anger. There is intensity in some of their lyrics. Anyways those are just my thoughts. -- Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 05:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would say they are just good at what they do. They fit 'Emo' with some songs, 'Rock Band' with others and even 'Pop'. Why anyone feels the need to box a band is beyond me. Why not accept a band on what it does and on sales MCR are massive, their following comes from all spectrums. I know that a large group of Maiden(Iron) supporters follow MCR and the Green Day fans that can still see what drew them to the early Greenday in this band, add to that the pure rock followers that like what they do, and you find you have covered a huge gamut of genres. They have a Queen edge to their performances with the energy of early Greenday and tight lyrics and beats that, you could argue, would be fitting of the Beastie Boys. That's a lot of bases covered, they enjoy what they do and they do it damn well. So if you are so desperate to classify them maybe they are Pop-Rock-Emo-Hip-Hop. --172.142.52.21 20:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Black hair. Make-up. Emotional lyrics, songs, and videos. And a whole ton of emo kids at their concerts. Their lyrics aren't emo? Emo lyrics can heave meanings. The sky might seem blue but it isn't. Essentially you could say that statement is true, but regardless it's irrelevant, especially if I don't back it up, and you didn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.24.5 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I listen to their music. I think they're emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.24.5 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• This page is a disgrace. The argument is laughable at best. Here's my opinion, which is sure to make it a thousand times better. Some of MCR's material could be considered 'emo'. What MCR thinks doesn't matter. Just because a band claims to be one genre doesn't make them that genre. Also, MCR's wearing black is completely irrelevant to whether or not they're emo. Emo is a tiny little offshoot of Hardcore Punk. A very tiny percentage of MCR's work can fall into this category. That is, maybe one or two songs. There's also 'Emo Pop', the existence of which is highly debatable in the first place, but which is meant to describe a genre supposedly influenced by Emo. MCR fits more easily into this category. --Albert Mond (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments against My Chemical Romance being emo

• The bands myspace [22] lists then as Rock/Metal and I aggree to this somewhat. There music is metal influanced in the same way that Queen was, and theres also some punk in their as well. --Lotrgamemast 17:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment- A band's MySpace cannot truly be trusted, however, I do probably agree with what you say. -- Orfen ^{User Talk} 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever genre a band says they are, that's straight from the horse's mouth info, and really only elitists would dispute it. For example, I am bohemian, but many elitists would try to dispute this because I don't live in an East Village style loft, am not part of any countercularal resistance movements, and do not have an Abbie Hoffman-esque desire to crusade against "injustice." But those elitists would be wrong (and full of crap), I know what I am better than they do. See where I am going with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Beavis (talk • contribs) 03:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are no reliable sources calling My Chemical Romance emo. Most are editorials and the fact that the title of one of My Chemical Romance's singles is called "I'm Not Okay". Also people are calling them emo because of their image and not for their music. My Chemical Romance's image and music genre are two different things and we are looking for a consensus on their genre not the style of clothes they wear or the way they look. For My Chemical Romance's genre I would suggest Alternative Rock, Post-hardcore, Punk rock, and Horror rock. But mention the term emo and metal somewhere within the article. -- Orfen ^{User Talk} 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Emo is generally the fashion style relating to hardcore, or at least it was originally. So your argument is invalid. Try again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.24.5 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thing is, their image isn't emo either. Rock musicians have had dark hair and makeup since the time of Syd Barret and David Bowie, and no sane person could call either of them emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Beavis (talk • contribs) 02:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

They dye their hair black and wear make-up and black clothing. If you're going to tell me that every rock band does that, I'm going to call you f**king retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.24.5 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• My Chemical Romance IS NOT emo. If you think they are emo because they wear black and makeup then your wrong. My Chemical Romance is an amazing band and people don't give them a chance because they just stereotype them as emo. Their lyrics also ARE NOT emo. My Chemical Romance wants to make a difference in the world; To show people life can be hell but there is still h hope and not to give up. Some songs might seem emo but they aren't, They have meaningful meanings to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.185.191 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• My Chemical Romance is not emo, there songs have nothing to do with them killing them self, i love them, i am just starting to dress like them and theres no way im emo, the lead singer was all that but hes has changed, and he does not get drunk anymore, he lernt hes lesson. so never ever let me hear anyone say they are emo, they just like to dress like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.55.130 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• they dress black, they like black, they like to look evil, but they are not emo, if they were they would say if they were emo. so they are NOT emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.217.44 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Emo is a stereotype, slitting your wrists is unheathey, MCR thinks so too! They r an awesome band and on youtube in almost every interview, they joke around... ALOT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.177.167 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• They are awesome and my opion may be biased because im a dieheart my chemical romance fan but im sure as hell NOT EMO and i can see how some people may think that MCR is emo but they are the people who nvr have even listened to their music! F**K OFF MCR HATTERS!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.239.209 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• They're pop, no different from Britney Spears, Green Day, or Backstreet Boys. --Clinton (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That would imply that they don't write their own music- which, as unbelievable as it sounds, they do. The same goes for Green Day, who write their music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsivar (talk • contribs) 23:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• My Chemical Romance are a pop-punk band, and once were a poorly defining example of post-hardcore in their Bullets album. To prove my point on the pop-punk bit, I find their pop-punk dynamics to be similar to Alkaline Trio, what with the dark imagery, lyrics, and melodic power chords/punk style. As for post-hardcore, they shift away from typical punk and add different elements to their music.

Now as for emo, that's impossible. There are three types of emo. Rites of Spring, Moss Icon, and Fire Party are part of the first wave of emo, known as emocore. My Chemical Romance sounds nothing like these bands. Heroin, Antioch Arrow, and Three Studies For a Crucifixion were part of the second wave- the hardcore emo and screamo genres respectively. My Chemical Romance sounds nothing like these bands either. Then there was the third wave- the one that ended up starting emo's notoriety: Post-emo indie rock. Bands include Cap'n Jazz, Sunny Day Real Estate, and early Jimmy Eat World. Jimmy Eat World became popular, and people associated them with emo, and emo became a fad as we know it. Of course, the story is not that simple, but for the sake of brevity, I leave it there. My Chemical Romance sounds nothing like those bands either.

Either call them a melodic punk, pop-punk, a post-hardcore band, or use all the terms. But one thing is certain: They are not an emo band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsivar (talk • contribs) 02:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, you can't give emo a specific definition. Emo doesn't necessarily mean slitting your wrists, and it doesn't mean they won't joke around on youtube... I think you're the person conforming your opinions to stereotypes. Also B sure 2 use proper grammer, its really annoying when ur statement iz just 1 long runon sentance. 4n|) 17 m4|<35 U l00k l1k3 4 r374|2|) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.24.5 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I allways thought that emo was a sound of the music, and the vocals, not how you dress or act. If SDRE had worn suits and stood still the whole time, people would still call them emo. MCR has to be just hard punk/pop. Emo really isn't as much about what you wear as much as how you sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.61.168 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Major project revamp: March 2009

Hello all. Over the last few days I've been working on a major revamp of this WikiProject, including a number of improvements designed to get the project moving forward and give us the tools to be as effective as possible. Basically I did this because I noticed that the assessment categories for the project banner didn't even exist yet, and when I checked out the project I saw it was largely inactive but that there was potential to get it moving again. You may have already noticed the redesigned main project page. Here are some of the other major changes:

1. We now have an Assessment Department for rating articles by class and importance. You'll notice that the 1.0 editorial team bot will automatically update the table of articles every 3-5 days. This was something I couldn't believe the project didn't have already, as it's one of the most useful tools for any wikiproject. However, its usefulness depends entirely on editors filling in the "class" and "importance" fields in the project template when tagging articles, so be sure to do that! I've created all the necessary categories, so it's ready to go.
2. The Collaboration of the month is a place for us to focus on a different article each month, thereby spurring us to improve articles that really need it. Of course it doesn't work unless people nominate articles to be the CotM, so get on it!
3. The Things to do page has been revamped, so take a look at it and add tasks that need to get done.
4. Next I'm going to work on creating an Emo portal, which will serve as a sort of central navigation point for all things emo-related.

What needs to be done

With these new tools in place there are several tasks which require attention from project members:

1. We need to depopulate Category:Unassessed Emo articles and Category:Unknown-importance Emo articles. To help with this, go to either category, pick a few articles, and look them over. Then go to their talk pages and replace the old version of the project template with the updated one - {{Wikiproject Emo|class=|importance=|listas=|nested=}} - filling in the "class" and "importance" fields according to the new assessment scale. If other projects have already given the article a class rating, it's usually safe to give it the same rating. The point is to help us prioritize which articles need work.
2. Add new articles to the project by tagging their talk pages with the project template. Remember to fill in the class and importance fields according to the assessment scale, otherwise they will be added to the unassessed categories. As you browse Wikipedia, whenever you come across an emo-related article that isn't already part of the project, add it!
3. Encourage new editors to join the project. You can do this by placing one of our new welcome templates on their talk pages. Use {{subst:Emowelcome}} for new users such as anons and new accounts, or {{subst:Emowelcome-E}} for more experienced editors. The more members we have, the more effective we can be as a project.

That's it for now. The next step is to hold a roll call to find out how many active project members we currently have. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Histmerge request

• I have rejected the request to histmerge Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo/Project Icon, Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo/Discussion, Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo/Discussion/The Used, Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo/Discussion/My Chemical Romance, Wikipedia:WikiProject Emo/Positive Factors all into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Emo, as many of these pages haad been edited in parallel: see Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#A troublesome case. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Roll Call: March 2009

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Welcome to a new feature of the project talk page. In order to keep us up-to-date on our number of active members, we'll have a periodic roll call. The idea is to post the thread a couple of times a year and leave it up for a month, allowing editors to add their signatures to the list. This way we can gauge our number of active contributors on a regular basis and update the members section accordingly. I've already taken the liberty of going through the list and moving a number of editors to the "Inactive" section. All of these were editors who had either been banned, retired, or hadn't made an edit to Wikipedia in over a year. Having an occasional roll call will make this easier. This particular roll call will close on March 31, which isn't a full month but is a reasonable end date.

• It's also worth noting that there is a Category:WikiProject Emo members. If you have the project userbox on your user page, then you appear in the category automatically. If you choose not to place the userbox on your page, you can still add yourself to the category by placing [[Category:WikiProject Emo members]] on your user page. As a courtesy, if you are leaving the project, retiring from Wikipedia, or are simply no longer active in the WikiProject, please remove the userbox from your user page. This will remove you from the category and help the project to keep its active membership list up-to-date.

• If you have not already done so, please add your name and interests to the members section of the project. Longtime members should revisit the page, as it has been revised. Consider adding a brief summary of your emo-related Wikipedia interests next to your name. This assists with collaboration and allows other editors to seek out help in particular subject areas.

• To add your name to the roll sheet, simply add your signature to the list below. Feel free to introduce yourself briefly. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Roll sheet

1. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC) - I'm responsible for the recent project overhaul. Next I plan to work on the Emo portal.
2. --EchetusXe (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
3. --Lover of the sand (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)*
4. --(Albert Mond (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC))
5. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
6. SobaNoodle^ForYou 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
7. ----1sneakers6 (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
8. LizParker (talk · contribs) - joined the project on 9 April 2009. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This roll call is now closed. I will update the members section accordingly. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Userboxen

Feel free to use...

{{User:Allstarecho/emo}} gives you a male version (HIS hair):

This user is so emo, his hair cuts itself.

{{User:Allstarecho/emof}} gives you a female version (HER hair):

This user is so emo, her hair cuts itself.

Enjoy! - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 07:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

is it funny to anyone else?

That "WikiProject Emo" think that My Chemical Romance is emo when even the wikipedia "Emo" article is accurate on the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.202.62 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources describe My Chemical Romance as emo and discuss them in that context. Fortunately Wikipedia relies on verifiability through such source rather than the opinions of individual editors such as yourself. The emo article is currently in the process of being expanded, and rest assured it will have mention of MCR in it before too long. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Brand New GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Brand New for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Fall Out Boy

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Fall Out Boy/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of reviews from the album infobox

This is a notification of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums regarding the removal of reviews from the album infobox. The discussion has reached consensus to remove the reviews, though is still accepting further input into the matter. We are especially requiring more discussion on what steps to take next. Your input would be appreciated on what is a matter that will affect a lot of music articles. kiac. (talk-contrib) 09:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Portal

Tweaked the portal a bit Portal:Emo....Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Scene (2010s subculture)

Members of this Wikiproject may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scene (2010s subculture), as the article in question is related to the topic of emo. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Emo articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Emo articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Is this project still active? Sensesfail123 (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sort of. There's very little activity at the actual project pages (like here), but there are a handful of active members who keep an eye on the major related articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Layout

Can someone move the Templates and Participants section from the sidebar (right) to the main section (left)? The layout looks really strange now with the main section being narrow and the side taking more room than it needs. (I was just going to edit it myself but the code looks complicated.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 22:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Vital articles

There is a discussion occuring here regarding which music articles should be deemed vital to the Wikipedia project. Your input would be appreciated. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Project restart

Hi guys. I'm writing from Wikimania 2013 in Hong Kong, and I was wondering if it's possible to do a project restart, where we continue what we already have here, but we restart certain parts of the WikiProject (such as assessment, project coverage and the like) from scratch. While WikiProject Emo in its current form has done very good work in the past, the fact that it's moribund today should give us a chance to assess what's gone wrong, what should we do about it, and how we can go from here (or there).

MetalBrasil and I, both big post-hardcore fans, talked about how we can revive the project, and how the project can expand coverage of emo/core acts on Wikipedia (e.g. many Rise Records bands don't have articles). I wonder if there are still people who are interested in rebooting the project so we can get it back on track somehow, and ensure that it's sustainable in the long run.

Hopefully this will start a very meaningful discussion on the future of the project, and I hope we can work towards expanding content on Wikipedia related to emo/screamo/core/etc. soon. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this project should be renamed as WikiProject Post-hardcore, or something along those lines. It is clear that this project was created to focus on a certain subgenre of music the the community of WP:WikiProject Punk music had rejected or considered low priority (I can imagine the conversation going, "Fall Out Boy is not punk rock"). It would be more sane to expand the scope of this project to include all post-hardcore punk rock music, as a child project of WikiProject Punk. There is a lot of music that falls under this umbrella term that has been overlooked because it is not "emo" and also does not get prioritized by the punk project. ozhu (talk·contribs) 15:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ozhu, I think that your suggestion is a good one and definitely worth while. I think the problem is that "Emo" has always been a polarizing term within the punk/hardcore/emo/whatever community. Since early "emo" bands rejected the label, and latter bands sometimes having little in common with their former, it's hard to define the genre. However, Post-Hardcore I think would provide us with a well defined outline of where to focus some energy. Thoughts? Natt the Hatt (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Natt the Hatt, I just outlined my case and some of my concerns here. I don't know if there is precedence for moving a whole WikiProject's namespace to another, or whether we should just create a whole new WikiProject and merge the content of WikiProject Emo there. cc User:Sky Harbor, User:MetalBrasil $|$ ozhu (talk·contribs) 01:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Ozhu, I support this course of action for all of the reasons you listed. Unfortunately, I don't know a lot about creating/moving/merging WikiProjects. Most of my experience with them has been to receive the newsletters and make a few edits when the mood strikes. However, I'm excited to work on this and just need to be pointed toward a project to work on. I'm here to help. Natt the Hatt (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me, guys. As far as I know, I am unaware of any precedents vis-à-vis renaming projects, but perhaps if we can get a critical mass of people who are interested, I don't see why we can't push through with renaming? It should be possible.

In addition, when we envisioned reviving this project last year, we envisioned it in such a manner that we wanted to cover both post-hardcore and metalcore proper (the latter being covered somewhat by WikiProject Metal), given that there is a lot of overlap between the two subcultures, and Wikipedians who edit, let's say, stuff on Pierce the Veil or Sleeping with Sirens will just as much edit stuff on Parkway Drive or Hopes Die Last or Architects. It wouldn't make sense therefore to divide editors along those lines simply because their origins originated from two very different genres of music, and it would be wise to get people on both sides of the aisle involved. What do you think? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Post-hardcore would be an umbrella term that capture many of the somewhat related genres that fall through the cracks not covered by WikiProject Punk music and WikiProject Metal. $|$ ozhu (talk·contribs) 17:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

That could make sense, though if we're talking about it from a technical point of view, it's not exactly correct. Though I guess for our purposes, it should be fine. :)

Anyway, any ideas on how we should restart the project? Perhaps let's have an idea of what we want to do before we ask the WikiProject Council with getting us recognized as the successor of WikiProject Emo? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Sky Harbor, I left a question for WP:WikiProject Council over here a few days ago, and they basically just suggested moving ahead since this WikiProject is inactive and there seems to be consensus among three or four people who care. It's been about 24hr since I left the notice at the top of the WikiProject, so I'm going to proceed with the WP:MOVE. $|$ ozhu (talk·contribs) 18:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be wise to start moving then, Ozhu? Though I guess once we do so, we can start tagging pages appropriately, evaluating them, and (most especially) getting people to join in and start editing articles. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Taking on a Job

I'm going to start moving over some of the other stuff from the old Emo project page so we can use it here. Things like the Assessment and {{WikiProject Emo}} template will be the first, so we can start getting them put up on articles. Also, just a thought, but with the new monicker for the project perhaps we should change the associated picture? Currently, the pic is of Jimmy Eat World. Maybe a better choice would be the photo of Steve Albini? At any rate, it's late where I am, and I'll start on that stuff tomorrow, or the next day. Natt the Hatt (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Project scope

So I guess I should ask Ozhu, Natt the Hatt and everybody else who may get involved with this project: what exactly is our scope? This would give us some idea as to what kinds of articles we're looking to improve, and especially when we start assessing articles, what articles are covered. To that effect, I propose the following:

• All articles covered under WikiProject Emo (including the genres mentioned in the project page: emo-punk, pop-punk, screamo and emoviolence) shall be grandfathered into the scope of this project
• Our scope shall be expanded to include post-hardcore, metalcore and its sub-genres (melodic metalcore, mathcore, deathcore, electronicore, etc.), genres closely identified with the core scene but are not strictly metalcore or post-hardcore (which would include pop-punk as mentioned earlier, djent, melodic death metal and crunkcore), and bands belonging to multiple genres of which one is core (e.g. Dead by April, Chunk! No, Captain Chunk!, One Ok Rock, etc.)
• Bands mentioned in publications such as Alternative Press, Kerrang! and Rock Sound, and in websites such as Absolutepunk.net, shall be included under the project's scope unless they are identified as strictly belonging to another genre (such as punk or metal)

This is a rough outline of what I hope will be the direction this project will be moving in going forward, so I look forward to any and all input I can get. :) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a good start to me. However, a concern to look at is being over general in the articles we would include here. While emo and metalcore and their various derivative forms fit well within this project, I think we need to limit some of what we cover. Articles like Pop-punk and melodic death metal, although a part of the wider scope, would probably be better served by the punk and metal projects. The real first step should be to reach a consensus on a definition of Post-Hardcore, including origins, musical style, and important elements/bands/lables. The Post-hardcore page itself presents a somewhat vague idea of P-HC's beginnings. Second, I think the Post-hardcore page needs our attention. As our namesake article, that should be our flagship and we should work to make that into a GA or FA. Once we have those things nailed down, then we can work out from there and start bringing this project together. These are just my suggestions and I welcome any thoughts or concerns. I've never been this involved in a project before, but I'm ready to go to work.Natt the Hatt (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

While I may agree that MDM would be better covered by WikiProject Metal, I actually disagree that pop-punk would be better served by WikiProject Punk music. A lot of bands, for example, that are considered to be pop-punk are in fact identified with the emo subculture or have strong core followings (All Time Low, Yellowcard, The Ataris, Autopilot Off, etc.), which if you ask me would be poorly served by that project, and would probably receive more attention here than there. If the concern is being overly general, then at the very least we should come up with a consensus as to whether or not they deserve to be within our scope: I believe that aside from being reasonable Wikipedians, we're first and foremost reasonable consumers of this type of music, and we should be able to recognize fairly easily whether or not a particular band, a particular genre or a particular article would reasonably fall under our scope if the existing corpus of literature is unable to do that for us. (As it is, even the very definition of what "post-hardcore" is, just like the definition of "emo", is under considerable debate.)

I do think though that it would be wise to start considering what it is we want to work on, and the only way we can do that is to consider what our scope is. Only then can we come to some sort of consensus as to what we think "post-hardcore" is, and only then could we actually consider working on improving our titular articles (which for me—and I spelled this out clearly last year—are post-hardcore and metalcore) towards GA or FA status. I actually envisioned this to be a relatively quick process so we can get to work: if this is our consensus, then we should work towards making that a reality. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should take on any sub genres that were under the scope of WikiProject Emo; that is, any band that would be labelled as "emo". For example, bands like Fall Out Boy or Taking Back Sunday would definitely not be considered relevant to WikiProject Punk music, even though they technically fall under the genre of pop punk. It is a bit of a "I know it when I see it" policy, but I definitely don't mind erring on the side of inclusiveness. As Sky Harbor has mentioned, there are lots of subgenres of punk/metal that have notable acts, but are overlooked by the punk and metal wikiprojects because they are relatively marginalized. Of course, the bulk of the project should still be dedicated to acts that are undeniably considered "post-hardcore". Also, sorry for leaving the page in a halfway state. I haven't really had time to work on it since creating it. :) $|$ ozhu (talk·contribs) 17:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The question of what is "undeniable", however, is still something that is up for debate, and that is something that I hope we can agree on fairly quickly. That way, we know what we're expecting and, at the same time, people will know what we're writing about (which is more important). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Inoculator"

The usage and primary topic of Inoculator is under discussion, see talk:Inoculator -- Natt the Hatt (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding terminology of singles

I have started a discussion regarding how Wikipedia should define singles. Please go here to discuss.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Embrace (American band album) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Embrace (American band album) to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)