Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Punk music/Archive 1

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Punk music/Archive 1

Metalcore and all the subgenres need a lot of work

There was a tech metal page that had a lot of vague references to a handful of metal and core genres. I completly redid that page and turned it into the technical death metal page. In the process I've found a lot of bands that fit into deathcore, mathcore, noisecore, technical metalcore, progressive metalcore or all of the above. All of those subgenres are closely related. Does anyone on this project want to help me organize/create/fix all those pages?--Daevin 19:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn;t those be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal? Dwnsjane2 02:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

well, yes, but there is strong punk influence in metalcore. But since metalcore sucks (IMO) and I don't ever listen to it, I can't really help. The Ungovernable Force 06:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Punk music/Archive 1

Projects to work on

So, what should we devote our energies to first? There's a lot of stuff to be cleaned up, and a lot of POV conceptions about what punk is and isn't floating around on Wikipedia. Sometimes it seems a lot of people are unaware of the true diversity of punk, from New Wave to post-punk to even protopunk and the first wave from New York.

Personally I want to devote a lot of time to The Clash and Joy Division, because I know quite a bit about the subjects and the resources exist to make them really great articles. Also, I really want to resolve this aggravating genre debate going on at Green Day (where we can't even use the phrase "rock band" int he first sentence because it might cause an uproar). However, I'm perfectly willing to first work on a project that we can all contribute to and work together in order to drastically improve. WesleyDodds 03:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

the emo article has caused friction because it represents bands that while they may not be emo, have been labelled as such, thus it could be argued that because they are seen to be emo then they are. green day are on the whole seen as a punk rock band, so why not leave them as such. If the wiki emo article goes against the original emo fans, and takes into account the fact that their are competing definitions then why should we try and protect the essentialist arguments of people who say green day aren't punk (whilst also respecting their opinions as part of the punk ideology section? artoftheusername 21/04/06

I've noticed the debates going on at the Emo page. Emo, pop punk, and even post-hardcore stir up a lot of debate that often degenerates into inconclusive back-and-forth.

What's important to consider in emo's case is that what the term "Emo" signifies has changed. Not every emo band these days has listened to Rites of Spring; why should they when they can listen to Sunny Day Real Estate or Jimmy Eat World? It's one thing to bemoan modern emo in favor of tru emo, but bands like The Used and so forth have been called emo for years at this point. At some point people need to let go.

Of course, in theory citations trump all. If something like Allmusic.com or Rolling Stone or Spin magazine call a band emo, then it's probably safe to include them under the emo category. If anyone objects tot he classification, point to the source which can be discussed and analyzed. There's this article about emo from Guitar World back around 2000 that I plan to work into the article soon, so if anyone else can get some print references for these controversial genres, please let everyone know. WesleyDodds 03:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The way to clear it up is to point out that some fans of emo do not consider those newer bands to be emo (provide cites of course). Just yesterday I was talking with someone who thought Rancid was crust punk. Clearly there are some major differences in interpretation of genre. The Ungovernable Force 05:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I intend to work on cleanup more than anything else, due to the large number of POV ridden articles written like fanzine features. Oldelpaso 19:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on the Ramones extensively; I'm particularly averse to the References & Tributes section, which continually gets irrelevant information added to it (so *what* if blink 182 has a song with a "1-2-3-4" count, or a Brazilian band with no link has a song that namechecks the band?), as well as the opening paragraph, which I've revamped completely now.

I've attempted to expand the Glam punk article, which was recommended to be improved on the project page, still needs a bit of work though. - Deathrocker 02:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

murdercore?

i see that Murdercore was created recently. it doesn't specifically mention punk, but it has the hardcore punk footer template. is this a valid term or fodder for WP:AFD? --MilkMiruku 18:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds totally fake, especially since the only band referenced doesn't have a page.

While we're at it, there's something very suspect about punk blues as an article. WesleyDodds 19:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Both look fake. The Ungovernable Force 05:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Six Feet Ditch is known as Murdercore. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.197.178.237 (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Dead Kennedys astroturfing

There's been a rash of astroturfing on the Dead Kennedys, Jello Biafra, East Bay Ray, and Alternative Tentacles... thought it might be something that needs more unbiased eyes on it. I have my personal theories on the whole subject of the Dead Kennedys but those opinions don't belong in the Wikipedia articles... These articles could use more eyes watching for bias on both sides. A proper re-write of Alternative Tentacles would be nice as well. Xinit 18:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Introducing Xsxex

Hey im a new participant in the WikiProject PRM (should it say WikiProject Punk Rock Music at the top instead of "WikiProject Punk music (section)"... anyway yeah ive been working on a number of articles, mainly in the Pop punk section. I saw that the Punk pop was redirected to Pop punk which is OK, but there was some information there that could have been added to Pop punk, which when i looked through it, i couldnt find. also please explain astroturfing. Xsxex 20:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Astroturfing" is the simulation of a grassroots effort actually controlled by a top-down organization. As for pop punk, have at it. Be bold! - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

See astroturfing.

• This is an encyclopedia you know ;-) Oldelpaso 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ok!. yeah well it been awhile since July 3rd, cool yeah i think the pop punk article has come a long way, still could use some good work and looking over, but definitely much better than where it was. what do you guys think? Also I have an article in the Deletion Review section about Theta Beta Potata, its linked to punk house right now and it looks like the decision reached at the Deletion Review might effect both those articles. I'd appreciate any other opinions in the matter. Some users, it seems, are even questioning the notability of a punk house article. I do think that as the WikiProject Punk music group we should support the article on punk houses, at the very least, and then recommend some kind of criteria for separate articles about specific punk houses. Another option which was mentioned would be to have a paragraph about specific notable punk houses on the punk house article and not have separate pages for them. I'll repost this on the front page of the WikiProject PM. Thanks. Here's the link to the TBP Deletion Review Discussion. Scroll down to post, there are around 10 responses so far. Xsxex 14:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Template: Punk and punk genres

Recently a whole slew of genres have been added to Template:Punk. While it's great to create a comprehensive list of punk rock subgenres, I have to ask: how many of these are legitimate genres, and how many are just colloquial terms for certain sounds? For example, honky punk basically has nothing on the page, and seems like a neologism. From the looks of it, a number of these pages could stand to be merged, redirected, or deleted. WesleyDodds 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a typo for "hockey puck"... - 05:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Should we deleted usernames on the Participant List which are Redlinked??

discuss please, will these redlinks rejuvinate? Xsxex 22:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

any opinions here? discussion? Xsxex 15:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really, some users don't have userpages (User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson? doesn't have one and they're an admin). Now, two of them have no contributions after adding their name (one has only contributed here) and the rest haven't contributed for at least a month. Perhaps move to a section titled "Inactive Participants" (and do the same for anyone else who hasn't been contributing to wikipedia for a while. The Ungovernable Force 05:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if needed that's the option to take, per many other WikiProjects. Oldelpaso 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What does "contributed here" mean? Someone could easily be working on punk-related articles without commenting on the WikiProject page. - Jmabel | Talk 21:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at all the edits they have made and this is the only page they've edited. The Ungovernable Force 21:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, yes, I'd probably also be inclined to delete someone whose only Wikipedia edit after a month or so is to claim to be part of a project. - Jmabel | Talk 22:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Im fine with making a list of "in-active" users. That seems to do the job. Also if we were really crazy, we could go through the histories of the pages we work on and try to encourage users to join us? These user names could also go on a list of "users who have contributed" to a punk music realted article. Xsxex 17:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, should the user names be alphabetized? There is a precedent at Wikipedia:WikiProject hip hop. Moreoever, they actually have their user list on a separate page. Should we follow that approach too? Xsxex 17:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK. I move to make an list of inactive user names and also to alphabetize the list we currently have. Support? Counterpoints? Xsxex 19:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine by me. - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • OK. its happening. Xsxex 14:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

src: file.wikipediam.org

Pop Punk Revival Merge Discussion

As of this writing, I have sent a message to every user on our Participant List... this should generate some more responses there, plus give us a chance to meet each other more.. word, :D Xsxex 23:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is old news, but the debate decision was to merge "pop punk revival" into "pop punk". This was a while ago. This section can be archived or discarded. Xsxex 19:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Admin, who is the Admin around here?

Looking for the admin in regard to the pop punk article, I want to help write the best article possible but it is constantly revamped, also many users are not using the talk page. Yeah, this is going to be a hard article to write and maintain but it's something I'm willing to put the time into. As you can see, I have spent alot of time writing comments and discussing points on the talk page. Let me know if there is anything more I can do. Xsxex 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Admins have no more authority as editors than anyone else. Here are some useful links for things admins specifically do.

• Checkuser
• Sock puppets
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement
• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of. If none of that covers it, and it is an administrative rather than an editorial issue, try one of:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Jmabel | Talk 03:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Funny punk

There used to be a "funny punk" article, but it's gone now. I'm not saying it was a well referenced article, but it added an interesting view to punk. It defintely needed more work. Yeah it's a good thing that Honky punk is still around. Xsxex 17:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Aiden

Hey there. I have a difficult dispute going on in the Aiden article. Maybe a few people from this wikiproject can give their input. The band's official website calls them Horror Rock. Their music, however, differs a great deal from the definition of Horror Rock on wikipedia. The dispute is over whether or not to mention the genre at all, and if so how to word it in a neutral fashion. Thanks for the help! --EndlessVince 19:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just a note, does the pop punk accurately describe parts of their sound? the article seems to reflect that and we've used them in the section on the pop punk dealing with the most contemporary sound. thanks. Xsxex 14:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Stub template

I think the project page needs to specify the template(s) users can use on articles which are punk stubs. One example I have found is {{US-punk-band-stub}}. Ido50 13:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

neo punk

Moved the following two bullets from the project page: -- Xinit 23:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Neo punk? Come on people. Oh yeah, how about honky punk? Lets get some solid references for these or say goodbye to them. Xsxex 19:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I ran across this article a while ago. I never heard of neo punk before, but I cleaned-up the article because it was terrible. I had doubts about the existence of such a genre, but Jello Biafra actually used it in an interview with punknews.org, so I'm confused. -- Ido50 21:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Punk music proposal

Hi. After taking a look at the Hip hop WikiProject and being very impressed with it, I decided to propose a similar layout and ideas to our project. You can take a look at my proposed project page on my user page. Make sure to check out the collaboration page over there, which should list the current article our project will currently direct its effords in order to take it to a featured article status.

Please state your opinion about the proposal and whether it should replace the current project page. I believe it will make the project much more organized and attract more participants. Please note that it is just a proposal and some things over there are just suggestions, such as Black Flag (band) being the current collaboration article, which I just put for the sake of the demonstration.

Thanks. -- Ido50 15:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I am all for it!!! Xsxex 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good man. -- Reaper X 04:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sex Pistols on FAR

The article Sex Pistols is currently on featured article review, meaning it may lose its featured status if not significantly improved. Oldelpaso 11:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Deathrock

Deathrock needs a serious trimming of its external links, and needs its references analyzed and converted into the proper format. WesleyDodds 08:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad Religion

Hey all. Been trying to bring the Bad Religion article up to snuff lately, would appreciate some more eyes on it. Thanks, m13b 14:03, 19 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 21:39, 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 00:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Punk culture

I've been working on articles about punk venue spaces for a while (Che Cafe, The Smell, etc.) and I'm really interested in a project to document these spaces, i.e. squats, punk houses, and other DIY music venues along with general DIY culture (zines, etc.). I think this should be a subproject of the punk project. How do people feel about this? Any suggestions or ideas?hotdiggitydogs 22:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say: not a lot of individual households and squats merit articles of their own. I'd rather see this broken down only to the squats and punk houses in a particular city (or perhaps, in some cases, neighborhood). Otherwise, we are going to get down to the level of the non-notable: at this rate we are going to end up with articles about each of ourselves and all of our friends.

Also, for a lot of this, verifiability is going to be very difficult. I can think of two punk houses in Seattle that would be easily documented (the house where the The U-Men and The Look lived, as did Rob Morgan, later of The Pudz and The Squirrels) and the house where The Gits lived). I can think of another dozen punk houses and squats; a few short-lived squats (more anarcho than punk) would have decent documentation because they were public, visible squats that humg signs out the window and attracted press attention; the others, though, are going to be hard to document from what are usually counted as reliable sources. - Jmabel | Talk 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

harder to source articles about punk things

I find people on wikipedia are pretty quick to nominate punk-related things for deletion, whether out of simple ignorance or a different definition of what is important. Admittedly most punk bands probably don't need an article..but for example the HeartattaCk zine which was recently deleted for being "non-notable". It's unfortunate because there are many far less notable things that have detailed articles. Anyways it's sad because things in more outgoing/respectable genres are far more likely to get "Respectable" press about them. Oh well. Anyways my article about Shawn Scallen is up for deletion, maybe he's not notable enough, yet my articles about even more mediocre things aren't being deleted! :( Dan Carkner 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, HeartattaCk wasn't deleted, it was merged into Kent McClard, which seems like a place where it could grow just fine. No? If there is any content you think hasn't been placed there, the old article can be accesed at User:Parsssseltongue/HeartAttaCk, so you can cut and paste material from there to Kent McClard. - Jmabel | Talk 02:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Behind Enemy Lines (band)

An admin speedy deleted the Behind Enemy Lines page for being a non-notable vanity article. Am I the only one here who thinks that isn't the case? I mean, Aus-Rotten is pretty notable for a crust band, and they are made up of most of the same members right? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me now. In-line citations would probably help prevent this in the future. - Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Punk rock

Punk rock is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. LuciferMorgan 00:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Geographical bias

I read the article on "Hardcore Punk" and its seems to be from an entirely American point of view... almost as if the UK scene was some kind of incidental thing. I was a punk in the early 80s in the UK and I and my friends considered ourselves to be into "hardcore punk". We considered bands like Discharge, Disorder etc hardcore and we had really never heard much US punk except the Dead Kennedys and few others. Of course it doesnt really matter what a style is called but I dont recognise what was written at all although I know a lot of the bands mentioned. In fact some the "Early history in Europe" is almost insulting. For example maybe the reason Black Flag didnt go down so well is some of their records didnt sound so great, not because people had any predudice. People LOVED the Dead Kennedys. Also "Expressive fans of Crass, were called crassholes." What ??! By who ? Who felt the need to write something like that ?? Should we note as a point of interest every petty insult people in different sub genres called each other behind their backs. That kind of thing is at the very least boring.
(Please sign your comments mate, thanks) I have to agree that several of the articles I have stumbled across (I have a day-job that precludes too much editing activity at the moment) strike a ridiculously American POV at times. Perhaps that is unfair - they strike a ridiculously inept and incorrect POV at times, and I truly hope and expect that this isn't merely an American trait. American editors of punk rock are always ALWAYS valuable if they are contributing to the American aspects of punk that they know about, but it seems to me that American bias and/or guesswork and/or possibly-American nonsense-of-indeterminate-provenance is all compromising the presence of UK facts on WP with regards to punk rock. To see how ridiculous some of it is, you really do have to be a UK punk, I'm afraid.
A tighter emphasis on verifiable facts might help. Most of the problematic material is complete and utter POV. Yes, sorry folks, but original UK punks are still alive and well, and they are quite able to remember the way these things really happened! I remember an AfD kerfuffle regarding Pathetique, wherein many editors (some American) swore blind that the very real punk sub-genre never even existed (some laughably equated it with an invention called "funny punk"), until they were educated in the right direction by laborious referencing by (presumably) UK editors - including me. "Funny punk", FWIW, (I can confirm as a UK punk) never existed east of NYC.
Punk Pathetique had to fight its ground with copious quotes, way beyond the call of duty, just because some non-UK-punks had never heard of it. Well then, surely the same stringent referencing should apply to all the general sweeping statements made by (certain) editors who clearly know nothing of which they write in relation to punk rock. If I ever get the time, I will go through several punk articles and rigorously reference them. Until that time, maybe we should all start by referencing ALL our claims, and if we find claims that cannot be referenced, then perhaps they should all surely be summarily deleted with... um... extreme prejudice? :-) --DaveG12345 22:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, when it comes to punk and it's subgenres there are going to be a lot of POV issues, perhaps more so than any other genre of music. The debate over what is or it is not punk has been raging since the term was first applied (indeed, there is a matter of controversy as to exactly WHEN this term was applied, with US and UK punks making conflicting claims).
Further compounding the problem is the sheer amount of bands that were around in the late 70's and early 80's, many of which went undocumented outside of regional fanzines (of which there was also a glut) that are no longer available for reference. Even when something is documented as fitting within a punk subgenre it is still open as a matter of debate within the punk community. Just because (insert popular music magazine of choice here) labels something as punk (thus providing a reference) does not mean that it will be accepted as punk by our esteemed fellow editors. This goes doubly for the subgenres.
This means, in the long run, much more legwork and "laborious referencing" to be done by all of us. It also means being willing to admit one might be wrong, especially as regards a subgenre within a different geographical "scene" than one's own. Since punks are almost by definition obnoxious know-it-alls as regards music (I know I am) this is not something I see happening in the forseeable future.
And, yes, I do agree that most of the articles on punk are US-centric, with the only later UK punk articles of any size being "Oi". However, I can't determine if this is due to any actual prejudice on the American side of things or simply to the fact that there are more editors hailing from the US. As an American myself I hope it's the latter, as an American punk I am almost certain it's the former. --72.147.206.118 20:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Distinguishing genres and styles, and ending edit wars

As part of my cusade against the "genre edit wars" that plague many band articles, I have made the following proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Genre wars and the distinguishing of genres and styles.
I would appreciate feedback on this proposal. I am going to push hard for this proposal to be put into action, and I appreciate any supporters in helping me do so. Thank you. -- Reaper X 01:19, 11 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 17:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Input needed at Anarcho-punk and Straight edge

A new user has made some major contributions to the anarcho-punk page and I would like to know what others think of these edits. See the talk page where I go into detail further. As for straight edge, there is disagreement on whether or not avoidance of sexual promoscuity is a central tenet of sXe, or just a secondary one. Again, see talk page and recent edit summaries. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 02:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey thar - cover post-punk Joy Division in particular.

i was wonderinbg if you cover post-punk bands as well. I asked in the wikiprject alternative music that joy division fell under this project, although you seem to have ignored them. Well maybe you should include them, as they are very important. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by TOMNORTHWALES (talk o contribs) 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Merging the Street punk page with Oi!

Please contribute to the debate over this on the Street punk talk page.Hoponpop69 07:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Better Badges

I started an article on Better Badges, who originated and then made most punk badges in 76-83, as well as printing many fanzines. It was promptly deleted. I've managed to get it restored, but it's still on dodgy ground. If anyone, especially admins, who remembers it would care to comment on the the AfD page or otherwise contribute, it would be appreciated. Wwwhatsup 02:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I did manage to get the article permanently restored . It definitely needs work. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OMFG! Antischism was speedy deleted!

To the barricades, to the barricades! Get out the molotovs! OK, maybe I'm overreacting, but Antischism was speedied under CSD7. Am I the only one who thinks that is crazy? They're huge in the crust scene. Heck, I have some of their stuff and I don't listen to a whole lot of crust (more due to lack of access than anything else). Please nicely ask User:Llama man to reconsider. I've already started a thread on their talk. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 08:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, totally ridiculous SD. Murderbike 03:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

1980 is a poor choice for a cutoff date

The phase 1/phase 2 groupings (as reflected in the lists) are badly served by choosing 1980 as the separation year. That was right in the middle of punk's popularity in many regions, including Southern California. Why not choose 1986 or so, when punk seemed to have run its course and the bands of today had not yet formed? Gaohoyt 00:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that different areas of the world experienced the changess at different times. At least in the UK 1980 was a very important year in the rise of post punk/new wave bands like blondie and the jam etc. --79.64.70.180 12:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Added an article on d.b.s.

For anyone familiar with the Vancouver punk rock band, there is an article on d.b.s. now. Contribute if you can! - Twas Now ( talk o contribs o e-mail ) 11:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

metalcore

why the "key artists" of metalcore are changed? i think the former key bands were more appropriated....who the fuck are judge and overcast? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.220.116.152 (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Identification

Searching "punk" on google restricted to wikipedia gives over 26,000 articles. I'm not convinced that all the articles related to this project have been found. Does anyone know of a way to search which articles contain "punk" but don't have the wikiproject tag on their talk page? Gimme danger 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

some input

I just wish to comment about the anarchy symbol above, is this to say that all of punk is associated with anarchy? Or that anarchy began with punk? (Even though they are posers IMO, need to read up on some Bakunin. Has not been an honest anarchist since the 19th century, lol.) Anyway! I noticed on that tag that they put on punk rock talk pages, it is a picture of a kid with a mohawk graduating. Lol, for a music article would it not be better to have someone playing a guitar or something? The current one is like saying "Yes, all punk rockers actually have a college education." Social science, so they can back up their songs point. Currently, the leading thesis is "ANARCHY FOR EVERYONE, I WANNA DESTROY! ANARCHY ANARCHY ANARCHY!" Sorry if I offended anyone with my facetious musings, just asking if there could be a better option!

I put these pictures up. Not because of any particular reason, I just put up the first two pictures I saw with some connection to punk. If you have better alternatives, please post them here. Thanks. # Ido50 (talk to me), at 14:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would think just a picture of a punker playing a guitar would be a good thumb, and I am not sure for the anarchy symbol. Maybe we should not use a symbol with so much of an political ideological association at all? Just recommendations.

---

In 1974 progresive rock bands (such as Roxy Music, Blondie, New York Dolls, Patty Smith, etc; influenced by Rock & Roll band such the Romones, the Knack, The Saints... these I would lable proto-punk) added integrated circitry distortion to electric guitars and synthesizers (non Valve), along with those who only used synthesisers, bands such as Krafwerk (1974) or those that only used electric gutars were at this time labled "New Wave". The British media latter labled such bands as Punk rock (a derogotory term because of their unliking of it and because many players or followers dressed like hood or hooker) first aplied to the 'Sex Pistles' in 1976 who then claimed to be New wave. The Cars were another band labed New Wave in the 70's. Many varients of New wave such as Plastic Punk (an equle amount of synthesizer sound whith distorted gittars such as Tubeway Army with Gary Newman who was lable king of punk in the 70's; Debbie Harry of Blondie was labled Queen of punk in the 70's) Its hanting form was lable Gothic punk (Siouxsie & the Banshees holding the queen of Gothic, The Cure having the then labled King of Gothic: Robert Smith), the Funky form of 'New wave' was labled 'New Romantic' in 1980. It has a rock drum beat (some times faster) but unlike Rock & roll usually lacks high 'A' notes. The Same sound has recently been labled by verious names especially Electro-pop. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.115 (talk o contribs)

New article

Spiral Scratch (EP), for your delectation. I hope! Totnesmartin 19:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Battalion of Saints

This band is certainly notable enough for their own article. Why isn't there one? ZAchAtTacK 17:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Because you haven't written it yet. Sorry for correcting spelling; it's like nails on a chalkboard for me. --Gimme danger 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Surf punk

I created a surf punk article recently and would like some help from anyone who is offering. I wrote about one paragraph that's not that good, so help would be appreciated! Thanks!--Ghostbear616 00:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Source

I don't know if anyone reads this page, ever, but someone has put up a lot of old out-of-print Heartattacks, MRRs, and other zines here, which might be useful as sources (although I don't know if they would qualify as reliable or not).--P4k 03:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible made-up genres

Here's a list of punk genres of Wikipedia that seem to be neologisms and barring the citation of sources I feel should be deleted:

• Acid punk
• Avant-punk
• Cartoon punk
• Cider Punk
• Clockwork punk (deleted via AFD, 13 Feb 2007)
• Fashioncore (deleted via AFD, 2 Aug 2007)
• Fastcore (merged into Thrashcore 24 May 2007)
• Foxcore
• Funkcore
• Glam punk
• Gypsy punk
• Indie Punk (speedy deleted 20 Sept 2007 under WP:CSD#A7)
• Jazz punk (deleted via expired PROD, 30 Aug 2007)
• Melodic hardcore
• Nardcore
• Pronk (music)
• Punk blues
• Scottish Gaelic punk
• Scum punk at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scum punk (2nd nomination) (30 September 2007 - 5 October 2007) Delete
• Surf punk (PROD 21 Sept, exp 26 Sept) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Taqwacore
• Thrashcore

Please take a look at all these, edit them judiciously, and tag them for deletion if necessary. WesleyDodds 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Without looking at the articles, I'd say keep for sure fashioncore, as long as the article is about it's use as a slur since no band that I know of self-identifies that way, melodic hardcore, and Taqwacore (analogous to Christian punk). Some of the others might be worth keeping too. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 09:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've certainly seen Avant-punk used. It gets over 20,000 G-hits. Glam punk (what else would you call Mother Love Bone?) gets 144,000. Punkabilly (79,400 G-hits) and Thrashcore (88,600) are also terms I've heard often. Acid punk should also be uncontroversial (221,000 G-hits). I didn't go looking up the others, they may be in equally common usage, but these five I've heard with some frequency. - Jmabel | Talk 06:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mother Love Bone is punk?! My mom listens to them (and by extension, I've heard them too) and they never struck me as punk. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just went and listened to about a dozen of their songs and the only one that sounded punkish at all to me was "Mindshaker Meltdown." Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you ever see them? Or (given the "My mom listens to them") see film of them? Pretty punk in terms of their stage act. - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually an even better example of glam punk are Big in Japan. - Jmabel | Talk 04:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nardcore is just about a regional scene, so it has about as much right to exist as eg Phoenix hardcore. Fastcore, Gypsy punk, and Scum punk are all terms I've seen outside Wikipedia, for whatever that's worth. P4k 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely vouch for Acid punk, avant-punk, glam punk, melodic hardcore and scum punk. Clockwork punk is the name of The Adicts' best of compilation, but I don't know of it used as a genre (more a fashion style if anything). Nardcore is (was?) a scene, and should stay. I created the funkcore article because I was working with such a band at the time, and it has just under 20,000 Ghits and a German Wikipedia article. I'm more familiar with it than avant-punk. ~Switch ^t 14:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm glad other people are interested in weeding out made up genres. I got Jazz punk deleted as well as a few others, and am working to make sure that the only genres that stay up are those that can be sourced.

Hoponpop69 03:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• By the way some of these like thrashcore and melodic hardcore, are actually fairly well-known terms. A google search would probably back this up.

Hoponpop69 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Inspired by Jayne Mansfield?

There is reason to claim that the actress had a substantial influence on the genre and its followers, as implied here. But, the section needs much development (context, general observation supported by sources, and more instances with verifiable citations). Can anyone lend a hand there? I have already put up an expert subject template that leads to this project. Aditya^{(talk o contribs)} 08:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Muslim punk

I'm seeing an increasing number of articles on this topic on the net. For example [1] Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Another story. I see an article has been started at Taqwacore. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Megabeat

Megabeat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megabeat (21 December 2007)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Punk metal redirect for discussion

I'd like to make readers aware of this Redirect for discussion. Punk metal now links to the metalcore article. I think the redirect should be removed as it is misleading. Punk metal is a far broader genre than metalcore, it's like redirecting food to spaghetti. Please post your comment here. Thanks! Kameejl ^(Talk) 19:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Need input at Punk rock

There are a couple of problems with this (featured) article as it stands. One is the overuse of fair use images, and the other is the preponderance of unreferenced breathless student journalist words like "seminal" (used four times and also quite rightly listed at WP:PEACOCK as a word to avoid). Unfortunately an editor there seems to be suffering from WP:OWN and was so offended I flagged up the problems he has reverted my changes. I'd be grateful for some wider input; the article really needs help in my opinion. --John 15:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There's definitely a few more heads needed in the discussion on the use of non-free images in the article. Currently key punk images, such as The Ramones first album and the Anarchy In The UK poster, are being removed for lack of consensus as to their validity. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Something of a request.

Hi,

I'm asking for some help if I may. My better half is doing her dissertation on wikipedia and punk fanzines and the similarities and differences (a very rough overview by me that). For it, she'd like to interview a couple of regular Wiki contributors to the punk project side of things, as well as a couple of people who have created/edited past/current fanzines. If anyone would like to help, or can point me in the direction of anyone that can/would, I and her good self would appreciate it hugely. If you need to contact me, just whack a comment on my talk page or reply to this.

Apologies for posting this here if this isn't suitable

Cheers Drivenapart (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Sonics

Have played dates in 2008 (see [2]) but no mention in article. I'm not knowledgeable enough to update here so can someone else? Exxolon (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hardline AfD

Hardline (subculture) is up for deletion. Notable? Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Plague AfD

The article on Joshua Plague, singer for queercore bands like Mukilteo Fairies and Behead the Prophet, is up for AfD here. Yilloslime (t) 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Red Scare Industries AFD

The article Red Scare Industries is up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red_Scare_Industries here. Paulbrock (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD: Halloween (demo)

Halloween (demo) by Napalm Death is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halloween (demo) (2nd nomination). -- Scientizzle 15:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

M.I.A. Afd

The article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.I.A. (band) (2nd nomination) -- again. Yeah, hard to believe I know. Gaohoyt (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Skullkrusher

Hi all. Just came across the Skullkrusher article, and can't see any hint of them meeting WP:MUSIC standards, nor has Google revealed anything. Anybody got any input as to their notability, or should I AfD them up? --Stormie (talk) 09:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 468 articles are assigned to this project, of which 164, or 35.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Psychobilly

I'm currently lobbying for some music genre consistency, specifically relating to how concise the stylistic origins sections are. I mean, the pop music article lists five genres (folk, jazz, R&B, rock and roll/rock, and traditional pop), which is a perfectly acceptable summation of it's origins. Heavy metal music, notorious for it's sub-categories which draw on all kinds of regional scenes, only lists two (Blues-rock & psychedelic rock). Once again, if you look at the history of Sabbath, Hawkwind, etc., this makes perfect sense. But - gah! - the psychobilly article has eighteen (18), most of which overlap (heavy metal and speed metal? punk rock, hardcore punk and street punk?) I know music's reaching this point where everybody draws some inspiration from everyone else, but, it's ridiculous way to show it. Li'l help o'er here? 24.3.14.157 (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Disorder (band)

This article has been nominated for deletion. It isn't currently tagged as being associated with this project, but it should be, being about one of the key early 80's UK punk bands. I've done what I can to improve the article - any further improvements would be welcome, as would contributions to the deletion discussion. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why it should be deleted. I commented on the deletion page, hope the discussion can be closed soon. # Ido50 (talk to me), at 15:19, 9 October 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) at 10:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

Thanks, wasn't aware of that. # Ido50 (talk to me), at 21:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Punknews

Hello, is there any consensus as to whether Punknews can be used as a reliable resource for articles within the scope of this project? Aurum ore (talk) 02:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it can be used, after all it has been around for a long time, it is updated on a daily, or even hourly, basis, it is well known within the punk communities and bands, and at least to me it is the only source for punk news... # Ido50 (talk to me), at 15:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I use punknews as a source pretty regularly, as they cover a number of acts whose articles I edit. The news bits on the site are submitted by readers, but they are reviewed and fact-checked by the site staff (normally by contacting the record label to see if it's true). They also have a number of non-news features like reviews. Again, some of these are user-submitted but others are written by the site staff (their reviews are marked with a "staff" tag so you can distinguish them from the user reviews). Punknews is pretty well-regarded as a reliable source in the punk/alternative music community. Scott Heisel, who used to be a punknews editor, went on to become the Music Editor for Alternative Press. So yeah, I think punknews passes as a reliable source, certainly for news and all their staff-written reviews. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This was brought up in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Scare Industries. Someone claimed "Punknews.org is not a reliable source, as it is a user-generated site without significant editorial oversight (hence the "submit news" link at the top of the page and unattributed news stories."Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been a regular at punknews for a while and have even contributed a few news stories. There is, in fact, editorial oversight. Users submit the news items, but they are asked to provide a source in the form of a link, and the punknews editors then fact-check the info with the artist or record label before the news item is posted. Users can submit news items, but they cannot post them. There is a substantial difference. That's why, on user-submitted news items, you will see underneath the title: "submitted by <user>, posted by <editor/admin>". From their FAQ: "We try to get confirmation on big news before we post it, so we'll hold articles in the queue as we wait for a band or label to confirm it. We also tend to hold smaller news stories (links, mp3s etc) and combine them into larger stories weekly." You can see from their About us page that they have news editors who are responsible for confirming submitted news items and editing them before they are posted. They also have a team of volunteer staff writers, editors, and interviewers, and some of their past staffers (like Scott Heisel, as mentioned above) have gone on to higher-profile writing jobs for other music publications. I have found the site to be one of the most reliable sources for news on punk-related artists, laregely because of the editorial oversight and the fact that they have close relationships with many record labels and are therefore able to confirm and fact-check their news items before they are published. They therefore pass Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability as a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." --IllaZilla (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean the Redscare article should be recreated?Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how much coverage it received in the sources. If there are a couple of sources that give siginficant coverage to the label (not just the bands on the label...the label itself) then I'd say it's sufficient. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Major project revamp: November 2008

Hello all. Over the last few weeks 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 the project seems to have been relatively inactive lately, and a couple of punk-related articles have come up at AfD which fortunately I was able to save but which I thought could well have benefitted from some collaboration by the project, but I didn't think the project really had the necessary tools in place to keep track of these kinds of things. Bottom line: I'm trying to light a fire under us and give us the tools we need to really improve articles. 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 we 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 (again, something I couldn't believe...most of the categories didn't exist even though there were articles already marked to be in them. Once I created them I found they were instantaneously populated).
2. The previous "collaboration" page has become the Collaboration of the week. The idea is for us to focus on a different article each week, thereby spurring us to improve articles that really need it. Of course it doesn't work unless people nominate articles to be the CotW, so get on it!
3. The Things to do page has been revamped, and there is plenty of stuff on it that needs attention. Some tasks are pretty stale, so take a look at them and update as necessary.
4. I'm working on the Manual of style to provide some blanket guidelines for various types of articles. This should be more or less complete within the next few days, but feel free to take a look at it now and make suggestions.

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 Punk music articles and Category:Unknown-importance Punk music articles. Out of the 506 articles that are currently part of the project, 481 of them haven't been assessed for either class or importance. For those doing the math, that means only about 5% of our articles have been assessed. 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 Punk music|class=|importance=}} - filling in the "class" and "importance" fields according to the new assessment scale. This is a big task, but with enough editors involved it shouldn't take long to get through the backlog.
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 a punk-related article that isn't already part of the project, add it!
3. Take a look at the Things to do page and help out with some of the tasks listed there. There are a number of old tasks that are still listed. If they've been dealt with, remove them from the list.
4. 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:Punkmusicwelcome}} for new users such as anons and new accounts, or {{subst:Punkmusicwelcome-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. I think I'll do that...now. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge the New Wave Wikiproject into this?

WP:NEWWAVE has been inactive for a while and is now even marked as historical. Given the renewed activity at WP:PUNK, how about that project into this one, given that New Wave is a sub-genre of punk rock? indopug (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it? I admit it's been awhile since I read much about new wave, but I certainly never thought of it as a subgenre of punk rock. It had some roots in punk rock, maybe, but I never thought of it as a subgenre. I mean, I could see how artists like The Police or Elvis Costello were coming from a punk background, but if we're talking about the music popularly known as "new wave" (ie. The Cure, Duran Duran, A Flock of Seagulls, Depeche Mode, etc.) then I think we're talking about something different and not really within the scope of "punk rock" (more within the scope of pop music). This was all in the early-mid '80s, and the stuff I would expect us to be covering from that time period would lean much more towards hardcore punk, psychobilly, etc. I'm open to the idea, though. It's better than letting those articles languish under a dead project. Anyone else have thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a form of punk. In fact, "punk" and "New Wave" were synonymous at first. Legend has it the term was created by Seymour Stein at Sire Records in the late 1970s when he realized radio was not receptive to Talking Heads since they were called "punk", so he came up with a different term to describe them, which ended up getting them airplay. Soon afterward Stiff Records used it a bit in their marketing, particularly with Elvis Costello. Despite the purist streak that often manifests in the genre's fans, punk is pretty diverse, particularly in the New Wave/post-punk era. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, fun fact: Duran Duran initially envisioned themselves as "the Sex Pistols meets Chic". WesleyDodds (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression "New Wave" was just a term coined by the music industry when trying to "embrace" the punk movement and thus make it irrelevant. # Ido50 (talk to me), at 12:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In a sense, yes, after the fact. But I doubt their train of thought was "We want to make punk irrelevant!" At the time, quite a few punk/New Wave bands were fine being called New Wave. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

While both New Wave and post-punk are ultimately filed under the punk genre, given their breadth (and the fact that those genres end up including bands like Madness, Duran Duran, Depeche Mode, The Cure, and U2), and especially the fact that in retropect post-punk was sort of an in-between stage in the evolution from punk to alternative rock, the best approach might be to create task-forces specifically dedicated to those genres. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I like that idea. We could transform the inactive project into a New Wave task force of which this project would be the parent. That way we'd absorb the articles into our scope but have a separate task force for editors wanting to focus specifically on new wave. Seems consistent with how some of the other successful genre projects handle these kinds of things. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

One problem I had with the New Wave project when it started was the name, because they also wanted to included post-punk articles; in the US, many post-punk bands were called New Wave when they actually weren't. However, both genres do overlap a bit, given they were both answering the question "What do we do after first wave punk?" in the late 1970s. I'd suggest calling it the "Post-punk and New Wave taskforce". I know I would join it; I have a pretty good knowledge and plenty of references for various types of punk rock, but the only form I'm actually interested in writing about on Wikipedia is post-punk (see Joy Division, one of the Featured Articles I wrote). WesleyDodds (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You could also do separate New Wave and post-punk taskforces; whatever works best for people. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For quick reference for others unfamiliar with the genres and because I'm a nerd (note that several of these artists started as first-wave punk musicians):

• Examples of major New Wave artists: Talking Heads, Blondie, Elvis Costello, Devo, The Jam, The Police
• Examples of major post-punk artists: Joy Division, Public Image Ltd., Gang of Four, Echo & the Bunnymen, Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Fall
• Examples of artists that are classified as both: Depeche Mode, The Cure, Psychedelic Furs, Orange Juice

- WesleyDodds (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week

One of the revamped features we now have is the Collaboration of the week. American Idiot is currently a nominee to be our first Collaboration of the Week, but it needs at least 1 more support vote by Thursday in order to become the CotW. I encourage all editors interested in a collaborative effort to improve this article to please visit the CotW page and voice your support. Also, please don't hesitate to nominate articles that you feel would make good candidates for collaboration, and to vote in support of some of the nominations. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It has its vote. Zazaban (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Teen Idles at FAC

In case anyone's interested, The Teen Idles are currently a Featured Article Candidate. Kaldari (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Monthly roll call: Nov. 2008

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)

It's on my watchlist now. Seriously, anyone who thinks it's speedy worth really needs to work on their music history. Being the first emo band, Rites of Spring will probably end up qualifying as one of the more influential bands of the last 25 years, I mean, emo is one of the biggest things right now and will probably end up influences a huge chunk of music yet to come. Zazaban (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Punk Scene

Hey all. We need to get up a good section on the LA scene in the main punk rock page. I was surprised when I noticed there wasn't a subcategory for it. New York has its own tab, and so should LA. Instead, the subcategorization is in North America which is too broad. Tim010987 (talk), WikiProject Punk music, 16:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. A couple of good source books for that topic would be We Got the Neutron Bomb by Marc Spitz and Brendan Mullen (ISBN 0-609-80774-9) and American Hardcore by Steven Blush (ISBN 0-922915-71-7). --IllaZilla (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Save article on punk book from deletion

Hi guys,

There's an article on a book about 77 punk that will be deleted unless you help saving it by commenting on its AfD page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/77:_The_Year_of_Punk_and_New_Wave

I've found 2 reliable references that assert its notability.

Thanks Strummer25 (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Join discussion on reliable sources for punk bands

In many cases, articles on punk bands (or rock bands, in general) are deleted since deletionist editors don't accept music websites such as punkbands.com, punktastic.com etc. and sometimes even allmusic.com as reliable sources. I've started a discussion here, your welcome to add your comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_allmusic.com.2C_punkbands.com.2C_www.roomthirteen.com_etc._reliable_sources_for_asserting_notability_of_rock_bands.3F

This could later be referred to whenever a punk AfD needs to be saved. I was also thinking that a list of reliable music websites should be assembled, but I'm not sure where to propose that, I'm still a newbie here. Strummer25 (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You are now a god to me. You have my complete support. Zazaban (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Genre assistance

Hi there. I need some assistance. I, as well as some other editors, have noticed that many punk band articles don't match the lead-in format for the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The lead-ins should all aim for generality, saying just "rock band", with subgenre or style discussions following later in the article. Can everyone please make this change whenever you see an article that doesn't say "rock band" in the first sentence?

(Also, I would like some editors to help me monitor the Rites of Spring and At The Drive-In articles. Many, possibly younger, editors keep removing or qualifying "emo" due to the social stigma surrounding the term, and also the POV involved with the "well, they don't sound like today's emo" mindset. PS - Someone on the Rites page--and assorted other pages like Bikini Kill, and Fugazi--also keeps moving "Alternative rock" up at the top of the genres list and it always looks odd. Thanks.) --Tim010987 (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for band articles to always just say "rock band" in the lead sentence. Stuff like this should be done on a case-by-case basis. indopug (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There's actually no set guideline for this; it's something I've personally used as a rule-of-thumb when writing band article utilizing wiki guidelines. I've been telling people about it (primarily with a guideline proposal for discussing genres in music articles a number of people have seen), but it's getting somewhat mangled in translation. Simply put, how broad you are in the lead will vary for article to article. Aim for generality, but how general you are will depend on the content of each article's lead section. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll echo the above two statements and add that if a band has only over played punk rock then saying they are a punk rock band is general enough. --JD554 (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't have to be the same in every instance. FYI this stemmed from a conversation Tim and I had at Talk:Misfits (band)#Genre?. I noted there that for some bands it probably wouldn't be necessary. The Sex Pistols, for example, never played anything other than punk rock, so it may not be necessary to be more general than that as their style does not require multiple genres to describe. The Clash, though, played many different styles and experimented with several genres, so saying "rock" in the first sentence is the best idea. Case-by-case evaluation is the best practice, and it's going to vary depending on what other information about genres/styles is contained elsewhere in the lead. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Smalls

Hello! New to the group. Interested in developing the album pages for The Smalls. Is there any interest for that in this group? --Donnaredding (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Always room for more articles in the project :) I've tagged the main article with the project template, feel free to tag the associated ones ie. albums. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm super green, how do I tag them? Also, there's one particular user who always deletes the pages, how do I set them up so we can work on them without them getting deleted? --Donnaredding (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Just follow the instructions at Template:Wikiproject Punk music to add the project tag to the article's talk page. If you have trouble with it drop me a message on my talk page & I'll walk you through it. As for keeping people from redirecting the articles, you'll need to establish that they meet the notability criteria listed at WP:MUSIC. The best way to do this is to add reliable sources to the article in the form of citations. Secondary sources are the most important to establishing notability. For albums, tracking down links to a few professional reviews is typically a good start. If you have trouble adding sources to the article, drop another note here & I'll lend a hand. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. -- Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Misfits (band) lead-in sentence Request for Comments - "rock band" vs. "punk rock band"

There is a Request for Comments regarding the lead-in sentence of Misfits (band) that was changed from "punk rock" band to "rock band". See discussion at Talk:Misfits (band). --Oakshade (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

COTW

This is about 4 months behind. There is also currently no valid nominations. What should happen? -- Teen Sleepover Kid (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You should nominate something. We might also consider changing it to the Collaboration of the Month, since it's not very active. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice: I've converted the Collaboration of the Week to the Collaboration of the Month. Since it's been so inactive since I installed it, I'm hoping this will allow more time for nominations & votes, & thus encourage editors to use this feature more. It really is a good tool for collaboration if enough people are interested in it. I think we need a membership drive too. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. -- Headbomb {^????_???????? - WP Physics} 09:35, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Request this group adopt the article John Holmstrom

Subject was recently prodded. Discussion led to the prodder making the article acceptable (the original was a mess). The article could use some work, and this project seems the best place to go for the request. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Tagged it for the project. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:22, 19 March 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) 02:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Need another opinion

Someone tagged the article Rapcore with a merger proposal, suggesting that it is a neologism. The discussion can be found at Talk:Rap_rock#Merger_proposal. References are clearly available showing that it is a legitimate genre and not a neologism. Could you help out? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

PROD of Pandemonium (song)

The page Pandemonium (song), which describes a single by Killing Joke, was PRODed on 10 December with the concern, "Wrongly formatted page". It was trivially easy to correct the format, but as I do not know much about popular music, I'm unsure whether the single is notable in its own right. Could someone please have a look at the page and either second or remove the PROD before 17 December? Thank you, Cnilep (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The editor who placed the PROD tag has removed it. Cnilep (talk) 19:39, 11 December 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) 09:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Green Day

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Green Day/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:00, 4 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) 03:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "[[WP

Incubation|incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

D.I.Y. punk

I recently started a page for the band Lesser Of Two. It was set for deletion. In the ensuing discussion it was mentioned that the fact that the band was D.I.Y. ran counter to Wikipedia notability guidelines. Is this true? I would appreciate some clarification and assistance. Thank you. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk o contribs) 13:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well they need to establish some sort of notability through reliable sources or cited achievements. See WP:NMUSIC for the criteria. It is really quite insignificant that they are unsigned, but i suppose if anything, it does indicate to an extent that they do not have the notability for an article. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

re detrick of the nuns

richie did not die in 1995 of cancer. please don't print misinformation like that it's not respectful. richie died of AIDS complications in 2003. please check the SSecurity death index it tells you exactly what date, but let me tell you, it was on May 24, 2003 i had just seen him a few days earlier. and delphine was NOT jennifer miro's girlfriend i don't know where you got that shit. furthermore, i don't think you need to know who's girlfriend she was, really. i knew those guys, jeff, rafael, alejandro, and richie was a roomate for a long time. i hung out at the mab all the time. 'research' the facts if you are weiting for a supposed encyclopedia, millions of people read this, why say things that are not true? the source is me the nuns and their friends. it beats inventing stuff --Preceding unsigned comment added by Raimundocarneiro (talk o contribs) 09:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok you seem to have a valid argument, however this is not the right place as we are not sure who your talking about...and lets raise the grammar level to above grade5 pls ...no need for foul language ....Buzzzsherman (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume he's talking about Richie Detrick of The Nuns. Raimundocarneiro, the proper place to raise this concern would be at Talk:The Nuns. Chances are that, even though it has this project's tag on the talk page, only 1 or 2 or even 0 project members may have contributed to the actual writing of the article. Also, per the verifiability policy you are free to be bold and removed any unsourced claims in the article. Please feel welcome to inprove the article by adding information from reliable sources and citing them. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Real punks wanted for AfD discussions

Two entries I started have been targeted for deletion, and I would appreciate people familiar with punk and metal to join the discussion so that it conforms with the relevant projects. Thanks. These are the entries:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesser of Two

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embers (band) noodle 02:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC) --Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk o contribs)

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 punk rock. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Manitoba (The Dictators)

Trying to get some editors to have input on a content disagreement at the Manitoba article (see here, and earlier parts of Talk Page. I think negative feelings about Manitoba are an obstacle to consensus. Any help appreciated.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

White Zombie early albums

The 1987/88 album Soul-Crusher by White Zombie is currently listed under WikiProject Metal but should really be under WikiProject Punk music. Although the band became more grounded in heavy/groove metal later on in their career, anything they released prior to 1989 sounded more like Black Flag, Flipper, and The Birthday Party (whom they were heavily influenced by at the time).--Soul Crusher (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm skeptical. The article classifies the album as noise rock. Just because they were influenced by punk bands doesn't necessarily make it a punk rock album, or put it in the purview of the punk music project. It'll probably fare better under the metal project as White Zombie are primarily recognized as a metal band, so members of that project are more likely to pay attention to the article and work on it. It's only tangentially related to punk rock, so I really don't see how tagging it for this project is going to help the article at all. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that just because a band is influenced by punk bands it doesn't necessarily make them a punk band. White Zombie carried their punk roots all the way until the end of their career, although Metal became much more prominent in the band's music with each release and thus tagging their later work as being Metal would make more sense. However, the thing is that White Zombie (or at least a good portion of the band) didn't even like or listen to Metal during the Soul-Crusher era. There isn' a trace of the genre that appears on the album. I don't understand the reason for tagging something as being Metal when it's anything but. Even if White Zombie is widely recognized as being a groove/heavy metal band, there is no denying that Soul-Crusher is punk through and through.--Soul Crusher (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't see it. I checked the sources in the Soul-Crusher article and each reviewer calls it a noise rock album. Not a single one makes any mention of punk whatsoever. Without any sources to back them up, I have to assume that statements like "White Zombie carried their punk roots all the way until the end of their career" and "there is no denying that Soul-Crusher is punk through and through" are simply your opinions. And while you're of course fully entitled to those opinions, I see no actual evidence that this album falls under the umbrella of punk music. I still maintain that keeping the article within the purview of WikiProject Metal will result in the most benefit to the article itself. I'd suggest adding tagging it for WikiProject Alternative music well, which I believe includes noise rock in its scope. Editors from those projects are much more likely to take an interest in improving the article than editors from this project would be, as its connection to punk rock seems tangential at best. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that you mention it WikiProject Alternative music sounds like a better bet to me. Thank you for your time.--Soul Crusher (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to Reason Promo tour

I just added Appeal to Reason promotional tour to WikiProject Punk music (because its band, Rise Against, is also a part of this WikiProject). I don't really know what to do with this article... It's basically one long list with just a little prose at the top. It lists every single concert at every single stop of their tour... It seems a bit excessive. I mean, if people want to know this, they can just look on Rise Against's website, can't they? The tour's going to be over soon, so I was thinking of maybe proposing a cleanup of the article that includes "events" (i.e., anything special) that happened on the tour as well as removing some of the stops. The article lists 222 stops (I copy-pasted into Word and numbered it to count it). That's a bit excessive, but I don't think there's enough prose to split the article into different "legs" of the tour. Maybe we could add a little more about the supporting acts' involvement in the tour as well, and any highly-publicized incidents that happened on the tour? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}/_{(background check)} 18:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the whole thing fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Concert tours. The sources are of the lowest possible caliber ("setlist.fm", last.fm, and Myspace? Ugh). The few that are up to snuff (ie. the band's website) merely establish that the tour happened...they don't demonstrate that it was notable in any way. To justify an article about a concert tour you need to say something about it other than just who played, what was played, and the dates...the artistic approach, financial success, and relationship to the audience might be things to discuss that would show that the tour was notable. But these topics need to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources first. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Should I nom. it for deletion then? That kind of seems where it's going... --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}/_{(background check)} 23:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If it were me, I'd nominate all of the Rise Against tour articles (as I see there are others) in a group AfD. I highly doubt there's significant secondary source coverage on these tours. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I haven't read any of the other articles; I just randomly stumbled on this one, but I'll check the other ones out. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}/_{(background check)} 01:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Punk music 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 Punk music 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 23:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about article/list format

Hi. My question relates to the proper format of a music genre article, specifically Oi!. I'm posting here (and at the music genre project discussion page) because it doesn't look like anyone has been to the Oi! talk page in a year.

The article currently includes a laundry list of about 30 "Notable Oi! bands"--just names, no other info in that list. My sense is that this does not belong in the article on Oi!, but perhaps as its own list-entry. Is that correct, or is this an acceptable format for a genre article? Thank you. Know Your Product (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The "list of notable oi! bands" within the article should go, as it's entirely unreferenced and therefore an example of original research. The most notable bands (if sourced) should be named in the article prose. If there are enough verifiable oi! bands out there to build a list article, then List of oi! artists or some similar list article could be created. Currently punk rock is the only music genre article to have attained featured status, so I recommend looking to it as an example of what a genre article should look like. For a list article, I recommend List of emo artists...it isn't perfect, but it demonstrates a list where all the entries are at least sourced. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I received a different answer at the music genre talk page, but this response seems much better informed. Know Your Product (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cockney Rejects

Cockney Rejects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm working on the Cockney Rejects page because they don't have a biography, just a collection of dated lists of members. I found their bio on the official website but there is a minor discrepancy in the year the band was founded; the site says 1978, and a previous editor says 1977. I feel like the band's official site must be correct, but the design of the site doesn't give me much confidence. I'm not sure which to trust. Alyssahelen (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)alyssahelen

What a previous editor said means very little; over the article's history, that date in the first sentence has been anywhere from '77 to '79. The official band site is more trustworthy. --Danger (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The existing article lists Jeff Turner's Cockney Reject as a source but only references the book twice. Surely there must be more useful information in that book. --Brendanmccabe (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Scale Help

Can someone who knows what they are doing venture over to straight edge. I think the article can be bumped up to B class now but I have no clue how that process works. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 01:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"Post-hardcore" is getting way too much emphasis on Wikipedia.

We need to make a "Hardcore" article. "Hardcore" should not re-direct to "Hardcore Punk". -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Omair00 (talk o contribs) 23:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

When you're talking about punk music, "hardcore" means hardcore punk. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's right. It comes from the early 1980s British bands like Discharge Szalamanka (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Worth having a Category:Oi! ?

There seem to be a goodly number of Oi! bands covered on WP; might it be worthwhile to form a Category:Oi!? MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any problems with this. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's to include mainly articles about bands, then I suggest Category: Oi! musical groups, with Oi! linked as the parent topic in the category description. That seems to be the standard scheme for categorizing acts by genre. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Smyth (producer)

If anyone has any books dealing with the Belfast punk scene in the 70s/80s you may be able to shed some light on this discussion. J04n(talk page) 18:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

He is not in any books I have --Guerillero | My Talk 20:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Roll call: February 2011

List of Punk bands

List of punk rock bands, 0-K List of punk rock bands, L-Z I was wondering if anyone else would be interested in helping out in cleaning them up a bit. They could use a bit of work, such as years active, band orgins, summaries and adding missing groups, as well as deleting ones with no article, or creating articles for those bandsJasper420 19:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would love to help out. It has been on my to do list for a while--Guerillero | My Talk 19:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If anyone removes any redlinks they should probably be listed somewhere unless clearly non-notable, I'm game to turn some blue. J04n(talk page) 20:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm up for that. I'll try to pitch in when I can.Natt the Hatt (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Is placing them here good J04n? Also Can we try to hash out whom should be on this list. Would a band such as Minor Threat (a hardcore band) meet the standard of inclusion? --Guerillero | My Talk 00:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It says to include bands that have played some form of punk at some time. Seeing as hardcore punk is a form of punk, yes, for sure.Jasper420 00:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes Guerillero, that is a perfect place to list band's for potential articles.J04n(talk page) 01:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

AN additional task would be going through discogs of all bands on the list and making sure articles have album covers.Jasper420 15:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sound exciting --Guerillero | My Talk 02:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Its not. :( I brought it up at Wikiproject:Albums, and I think they might be working on making a an automated category into which articles are added when the cover field is left blank, so that'd make the process a hundred times easier.Jasper420 14:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Project Image

The picture of the clash that we use as our project image is under deletion at commons here cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 10:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Punk bands revisited

WELL. Thats done. Ish. Almost every band now has a listed orgin and active years. Im off to expand the lists with more bands, so if anyone would like to handle the brief descriptions, thatd be nice. Also, i think british bands should specify which country they hail from, and not just show the UK flag. Oh, and if anyone knows about the counties and such, they could use some details there.Jasper420 04:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This becoming an effing massive project. Anyone care to help sift through Punk band categories and add them? This is turning me into an wikiadict...Jasper420 03:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could help but camp limits my time --Guerillero | My Talk 03:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured Media

I just added us to the new featured media classification. (FYI if any notable punk band has ever releced any music under a free license featured sounds would like to listen to it. ) cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 01:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Crack Rock Steady

I'm considering a category for Stza/Crack Rock/Leftover Crack etc. related articles. Thoughts?Jasper420 04:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I don't know anything about to topic so I can't help much--Guerillero | My Talk 04:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Straight edge

Greetings fellow punk rock enthusiasts. Would one of you please be so kind to look over Straight edge for me and to point out anything huge I am missing. cheers--Guerillero | My Talk 04:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well written and researched article. However, I would suggest changing the line about Minor Threats "Straight Edge" being their defining song on the subject. The best known M.T. song about straight edge would probably be "Out of Step", as that is the song that contains the "don't drink, don't smoke, don't fuck" standards. Other than that, making more mention of individuals like Ian McKaye and Tim McIlrath would fill out the details better. Especially since not every member of certain bands consider(d) themselves straight edge (Minor Threat, for example). All in all, very well done. Natt the Hatt (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Quality / Importance Scale

This may be an obvious question, but Punk Music is my first WikiProject. I recently created an article for Stay Asleep (Bigwig album]]). It's little more than a stub now, but how do I get it rated on the quality/importance scale? Also, while looking around, I noticed none (or at least, very few) Anti-Flag albums had the "WikiProject Punk music" tag on their talk pages. Is this an oversight, or do albums not traditionally get the tag? Grande (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Grande! Be sure to check out WikiProject Punk music/Assessment. I'm not too sure what you'll find there, but it's bound to be helpful  :)

I am also trying to figure out about rating --having tagged and worked on "punk" articles without rating or assessment... You'll find a list of unassessed punk music articles and unknown importance punk music articles.

Note - this is also my first second WikiProject! - Benzband (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Templates

I'm currently working on creating new templates for punk bands. Ignite is next up, but are there any suggestions for others?Jasper420 01:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean navboxes? I can't think of any offhand, but don't go creating a ton of these just because: they should be utilitarian...that is, they're not there for decoration; they should only be created if there are a bunch of directly related articles such that it would be useful for readers to link them all via a template. Ignite is an example where one probably isn't needed: there are only 6 directly related articles (the band one, Zoli, 2 albums & 2 EPs). Remember a navigation template is for inter-article navigation; It's not a discography. If you find you're filling it with a bunch of unlinked text instead of working links to existing articles, you probably shouldn't create it. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd already made it and one for Choking Victim by the time you wrote this, but I'll keep it in mind for the future.Jasper420 14:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference Sharing

In the spirit of sharing the resources that we as a community have I created a central place to list what resources each of us has. Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music/References If you would be so kind as to add books you think that may be helpful to other editors. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 00:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Good Great idea Guerillero! - Benzband (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

How about adding that to the Project's News? That way it might get more attention from other members so they can ad their references if they want to? - Benzband (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The news is used sparingly. In February I distributed it with my other account. I could do another round some time in the near future --Guerillero | My Talk 17:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Oi. The work around here is never ending. Now I've noticed our categories could use some cleaning, neatening and such. C'est la vie.Jasper420 21:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia ad

Hi everybody, i've created a wikipedia ad for the Punk music WikiProject. There's still room for improvement but it's a start.

Should it be kept? - Benzband (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty cool, good job! Maybe replace the Sex Pistols logo in the final frame with something else, like File:Circle-A red.svg or File:Joey Ramone.jpg. Currently it sort of reads "Enjoy punk rock? Join the Sex Pistols. -Wikiproject punk music." Could also drop the "the": Just "Enjoy punk rock? Join WikiProject Punk music." --IllaZilla (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Looks good, thanks for the advice. However i'm having problems with the ad (see this post). - Benzband (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The problems seem to be fixed. New ad works alright now. I hope. - Benzband (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I like it! Great stuff. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Simple WikiProject

I have created a Punk music WikiProject on the Simple English Wikipedia. I have copied most of the layout strait from WP:WikiProject Punk music back here... (hope you don't mind!)
Coverage of punk rock on Simple is very, very incomplete. So, if any of you edit there as well as here from time to time, you might be interested. See you there! - Benzband (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Trophies

The Punk music trophy case on the right panel could do with a bit of updating (see the index). What do you think? Shall i go ahead and do it? - Benzband (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

By all means, go right ahead. You've been doing good work on these project pages, by the way. Great job! --IllaZilla (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done. - Benzband (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

One-Eyed Doll

One-Eyed Doll is in just ridiculous shape. I'd recommend either a major over haul, or a flat out deletion of what seems to be an un-notable band. Yet somehow, it's already survived one attempt...Jasper420 04:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be enough sources for a small-good stub --Guerillero | My Talk 04:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe so, but everything appears pretty out of order.Jasper420 14:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• nods* Lets use some TNT and draft a new version. We could do it here. When it is done I will hist merge the changes in. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

List of punk rock bands, 0-K

Anyone wanna fix what the anon did? I would, but I don't have time to go in individually right now.Jasper420 00:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll look in to it. benzband (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done i have cleaned up 11 edits with this edit. Note that i didn't just revert it. I have also left a note on 69.113.174.105's talk page. benzband (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Theres still something funny going on. Looks like theres an extra column. Hmm. I'll see if i can figure that out.Jasper420 17:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

a few lines end with a || --Guerillero | My Talk 18:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, this was me as i removed content he added but didn't remove the | actually i think i might have added a few. Thanks for fixing this! ~ benzband (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Book

Hey, i just wanted to make sure you all know about the Book:Punk rock. I started it over a month ago and since have been the only one to edit it. I would be glad if someone could take a look to give some feedback and maybe improve it. ~ benzband (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ramones

Hi all,

There's some great stuff in the wikipedia article on the Ramones. I've taken a look to see if I take the article forward a little further with some changes to the structure and also added a little info into new categories. Anyone interested in taking a look to see if they can improve it even better, please fire away. In particular there is some stuff I've added under the sections on 'Influence' and 'Awards and distinctions' that I am sure that people knowledgeable and with good references from somewhere to back it up could expand.

Best regards, Socheid (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Charged GBH

The article says they changed their name to just GBH in '84. Should the page be moved to reflect that? As well as changing any mention on album articles?Jasper420 00:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom flag in List of Punk Bands

Could we exchange the Union Jack in the list for the appropriate country flag, where applicable?Jasper420 05:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Would that be like, England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales' flags ? benzband (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me like that'd be the equivalent of changing all the American entries from the flag of the US to the flag of whatever state the act is from. The country is the United Kingdom. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

...No. It's a unitary state. The USA is a federation. England, Wales, etc. are countries in there own right, unified under the moniker of United Kingdom.Jasper420 20:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

TSOL

I've raised a titling question at Talk:TSOL#TSOL or T.S.O.L.? Since that talk page doesn't seem to get much traffic, I'm posting here to see if anyone can weigh in. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I will look over some sources --Guerillero | My Talk 05:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia