Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Punk music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.
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:
Jmabel | Talk 03:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ForceGot 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

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 ForceGot 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 ForceGot 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 ForceGot 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ForceGot something to say? 02:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 • contribs) 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 ForcePoll: Which religious text should I read? 08:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Punk_music_eea8.html"