Talk:Pop music/Archive 4
Latest comment: 8 years ago by 82.11.190.122 in topic Reference error
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Subgenre vs Fusion Genre
A subgenre is a subdivision of a genre; as such, it contains elements of at most one genre. In contrast, a fusion genre is a mix of different genres; as such, it contains elements of at least two genres. Hence no musical style can be both. However Bubblegum Pop is listed in both. Other styles are similarly miscategorised. A tree-like diagram ought to be made.
--New User (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.191.102.187 (talk) New User
Decline
I'd like to informally propose deletion of this section. Just because you can source a load of critics, commentators etc. saying "pop music isn't what it used to be" does not make this encyclopedic. I can balance it with others saying the opposite but I'm not sure this is even a notable dispute. Also, sales aren't declining, just shifting from one medium to another. The idea that it's getting samey is inevitable as it has been around for half a century now. Nobody is any less 'adventuresome' [sic] than they used to be - shoulders of giants etc. More constructive to have a trends section maybe. Btljs (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Merge; 2014
This has been proposed many times before. This page should be merged with popular music, for reasons included in both talk pages. --Lpdte77 (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree. They are manifestly not the same thing and just about every book on popular music makes this clear.--SabreBD (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - "just about every book on popular music makes this clear" that's the thing, no they don't. Especially contemporary writers. There's no clarity at all. There's a lot of original research, a lot of synthesizing numerous ill-defined notions, a lot of cherry picking. The vast majority of sources use the term vaguely and interchangeably, and any less-ambigous attributions, such as 'mass appeal, hook, commerciality' is inherently what popular music comprises. If it's popular it's because it's commercially viable, it's gotten mass appeal, etc. There's no characteristic sound, typical instruments, or anything else that defines particular music genres and distinguishes them from other genres. There's no concreteness whatsoever. It is an umbrella term, like indie music and art music, and is vaguely attributed to particular music/artists with vague phrasings like 'pop melody', 'pop sensibility' - what is a pop melody? Rock uses melody, Jazz uses melody, Blues uses melody, R&B uses melody, Metal use melody, just about every genre/style uses melody. You never see writers say 'metal-melody'; What's a pop sensibility, or being pop-like? Is it writing a short song? Plenty of short songs in many genres. Is it using some form of electronic? Plenty of genres, including industrial, use electronic instruments. What does that mean? There's a lot of redundancy, a lack of definition, lack of distinctions, lack of specific attribution (e.g, using a reviewer's phrasing of 'pop-melody' or 'pop-like' to categorize an album or artist as just 'pop'). Actual specific genres are ones like synth pop, electro pop, pop rock, [[power pop], dream pop. This would be far more informative and reliable if "Pop as a subcategory", (supported by multiple reliable sources distinguishing it as such whilst attributing specific sonic, stylistic, lyrical, imagery, etc, components, and subgenres), as suggested in talk pages) was a section on the main popular music page. Both pages need revisions. --Lpdte77 (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose merger. There is overlap between the two articles, because "pop music" - in the sense used since the 1950s, which is the sense used in this article - is a subset of "popular music". It may not be a separate genre in the same way as, say, jazz, but it is a type of music that can be identified and categorised. The articles should not be merged - they should each be improved, based on reliable sources, and avoiding original research. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Precisely, because pop music could be used as a 'subset' of popular music, however there is no clear definition of such a supposed subset as distinct from other subsets or genres/styles. Again, refer to umbrella term indie music and genre Indie rock. 'Pop music' as 'pop' may currently, with reliable source support, warrant a subsection under popular music, but until there is a clear definition and sonic/stylistic attributions, 'pop music' does not warrant a separate article from popular music. Again, specific genres, like the ones referenced above, do, but 'pop music' does not. Pop music is a relative term, and historically evolving. Pop music in the 60s, is different from pop music in the 70s, the 80, and so on and so forth. And the subjective notion of 'worth' or 'substance' is too relative to the time (e.g., pop music may generally have had more substance in prior decades, like the 90s, than today). Today, what is pop referring to? Adele? Lady Gaga? Lorde? Maroon 5? Pink? Taylor Swift? Nicki Minaj? What of Madonna's 'pop'? The BeeGees' 'pop'? The Beatle's 'pop'? All popular artists, all 'pop artists' with distinct sounds, styles, image, lyrics, instrumentations, etc. Where are the components that unify them under 'pop', as a supposed genre, besides commerciality/mass appeal - which is all pop music or popular music? That define the genre as separate from another? Sonically/stylistically, what makes a currently underground artist playing, say, a subgenre of alternative rock, say dream pop, (or mixing multiple sub genres), then gaining mainstream success, now classifiable under 'pop' as some supposed genre (as opposed to a popular music artist)? Are they not still playing dream pop and whatever other genre they're incorporating? Adele is does soul, r&b, Lady Gaga does electronica, synth pop, dance, Lorde does indie pop, dream pop, electro pop, Maroon 5 does pop rock, electro pop, Bee Gees did psychedelic pop, pop rock, disco, and so on and so forth. All artists that had commercial viability, all pop artists. It is beyond me how anyone could consider the categorical term to be remotely clearly defined as a stand-alone music genre.--Lpdte77 (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see anyone defining it as a stand-alone genre. I see people saying it should be a distinct, but linked, Wikipedia article. Not the same thing at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that pop music is a distinct, separate Wiki article, separate from popular music article (as opposed to a section from it), indicates that it is a stand-alone genre, when the content and reality does not warrant that, actually. Therein lies the problem. If you say no one is defining it as its own, distinct genre, then why is there a distinct page on it, claiming such? It's not sitting there inoffensively. Its existence betrays reality and misleads readers, not to mention the vague, ill-defined content. --Lpdte77 (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see anyone defining it as a stand-alone genre. I see people saying it should be a distinct, but linked, Wikipedia article. Not the same thing at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Precisely, because pop music could be used as a 'subset' of popular music, however there is no clear definition of such a supposed subset as distinct from other subsets or genres/styles. Again, refer to umbrella term indie music and genre Indie rock. 'Pop music' as 'pop' may currently, with reliable source support, warrant a subsection under popular music, but until there is a clear definition and sonic/stylistic attributions, 'pop music' does not warrant a separate article from popular music. Again, specific genres, like the ones referenced above, do, but 'pop music' does not. Pop music is a relative term, and historically evolving. Pop music in the 60s, is different from pop music in the 70s, the 80, and so on and so forth. And the subjective notion of 'worth' or 'substance' is too relative to the time (e.g., pop music may generally have had more substance in prior decades, like the 90s, than today). Today, what is pop referring to? Adele? Lady Gaga? Lorde? Maroon 5? Pink? Taylor Swift? Nicki Minaj? What of Madonna's 'pop'? The BeeGees' 'pop'? The Beatle's 'pop'? All popular artists, all 'pop artists' with distinct sounds, styles, image, lyrics, instrumentations, etc. Where are the components that unify them under 'pop', as a supposed genre, besides commerciality/mass appeal - which is all pop music or popular music? That define the genre as separate from another? Sonically/stylistically, what makes a currently underground artist playing, say, a subgenre of alternative rock, say dream pop, (or mixing multiple sub genres), then gaining mainstream success, now classifiable under 'pop' as some supposed genre (as opposed to a popular music artist)? Are they not still playing dream pop and whatever other genre they're incorporating? Adele is does soul, r&b, Lady Gaga does electronica, synth pop, dance, Lorde does indie pop, dream pop, electro pop, Maroon 5 does pop rock, electro pop, Bee Gees did psychedelic pop, pop rock, disco, and so on and so forth. All artists that had commercial viability, all pop artists. It is beyond me how anyone could consider the categorical term to be remotely clearly defined as a stand-alone music genre.--Lpdte77 (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose merger. You ask the right questions above that a good article on pop music should attempt to answer, but I totally disagree that this is an argument in favour of a merger. There are lots of things that are quite difficult to define and yet if you were to present people with examples there would be common choices. Picking apart the different elements of the definition as you have done ("Rock uses melody", "Plenty of short songs in many genres.") merely demonstrates the incompleteness (and transience) of the definition. In many ways pop can be seen in the same light as the political middle ground, ie. what is left when you remove the extremes. The expectation of the mass audience is based on what has been popular up to that point, so new (to the listening audience) musical forms become integrated into pop by degrees as it evolves. So, if you take rock, which is well established in pop, at its most melodious, when it creates short songs with a hook, verse chorus structure etc. it becomes pop - nobody said the two had to be exclusive, just separately identifiable - since at other extremes rock is most definitely not pop. The same would be true of ska, jazz, folk etc. and more recently some Asian musical forms. The article is weak on describing the way regional music comes to be integrated into global pop (it implies that pop marginalises local music which is often not true - often the opposite). It also doesn't have to be a genre to be definable - there are genres in clothing fashion but you could talk about 'high street fashion' which could include elements of many of these, but interpreted in a particular mass-appeal way. I don't think you can successfully argue for a separate article on "dream pop" but not "pop" - that's like having an article on "hard rock" but not "rock". It may be easier to define a tight sub-genre but it still has to be a sub-genre of something; similarly with K-pop: you still need to understand global pop music to understand what it is. Understanding "popular music" won't help you much in either case it seems to me. Btljs (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment That is not a definition, nor concrete attributions (e.g., ‘middle ground’, 'when it’s not in extremes’, ‘when it’s not this or that'), but it is a completely reasonable concept, and solid notions for improving historical context in particular. Where are the reliable sources directly supporting such notions? And again why is it believed such ambiguousness is grounds for a separate article from popular music, as opposed to dedicating a section to it as ‘pop music as a subcategory’ or ‘pop music as a subset of popular music’. No status quo supporter has given concrete reasons or concrete references. It’s still grounded in original research, and in the spirit of such, you ask anyone on any street today what pop is, they will not be able to give you genre definition (just like no one has here); people will relate it to terms like ‘hooks’ ‘mainstream’ , ‘commercial’ ‘melody’, ‘major label’, perhaps attribute a ‘lack of substance’. And plenty of commercially successful genres fall under such attributions. No one can define it as a musical genre, which is what the existence of the separate article claims; no reliable sources so far that concretely define it as a genre per se, on its own right, with its own sonic and stylistic attributions… but still support for keeping a separate Wiki page on it remains. "So, if you take rock, which is well established in pop, at its most melodious, when it creates short songs with a hook, verse chorus structure etc.” What is ‘it’s most melodic’? What is ‘short’? Where are the operational definitions? Rock is a massive genre, with metal and grunge as two of its numerous subgenres, and two of its commercially successful (and that includes many others). Most of rock is melodic; numerous rock songs, particularly the well-known ones, are short; most of rock has ‘hooks’ (i.e., a musical phrase, riff, etc, that grab's the listener’s ear [no rock or metal riff musician will say they do not like writing or performing attention-grabbing riffs), much of rock employs a verse-chorus structure (even some of experimental or avant-garde rock)... so what is the basis for this notion that rock is then ‘pop music’ (as a genre) because of that? I think I've made clear pointing out the inadequacies of such arguments, which are ok colloquially, where denotation and referencing is not normally used, but poor for an encyclopedic article. "I don't think you can successfully argue for a separate article on "dream pop" but not "pop" - that's like having an article on "hard rock" but not “rock” - you can, whereby, for instance, the existence of articles on both indie music and indie rock are legitimate. Dream pop is a sub genre of alternative music, which has many subgenres also often melded and jumbled, and alternative music too received significant mainstream attention in the 90s. A commercially successful alternative act doing dream pop or some related style does not place them in some hazy, supposed ‘pop music' genre but it does make them a pop artist, vis a vis playing popular music. This continues to exemplify the logic on the redundancy of both terms, not to mention how ill-defined this one is. "you still need to understand global pop music to understand what it is” What is ‘global pop music’, is it not simply popular music, and in what specific way is it different from the supposedly-contrasted ‘pop music’? And where are the sources backing this up? We all agree both articles need significant revision. In the meantime, it needs to be noted on the article (by means of revelant tagging) that, in its present form, it is not fully reliable and that it needs work.--Lpdte77 (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Your last two sentences are entirely correct. But you have proposed a merge not a clean-up, which I have disagreed with and nothing you have said above changes my mind, sorry. I am scrupulous in only posting when I have reliable references and that would be the case with this article - but it takes a long time and a good (or bad) proportion of WP wouldn't exist if you just removed unsourced and badly sourced material, as this is an ongoing project. I don't feel the need to jump just because you keep asking "where are the sources...?" - a quick scan (Google in the colloquial) before writing my first comment confirmed that there are sources which deal with the differences between pop and popular music but I haven't had time to appraise them yet and I don't want to leave myself open to a straw man argument by quoting them. The point is, like any decent trial, the defence is given the opportunity to prepare its case before action is taken. So the "status quo supporters" (which I originally read as fans of Status Quo, which is funny because I would argue that they perfectly illustrate the point at which rock becomes pop and how this changes over a few decades) aren't supporting the page as it is, but as it should be. I think this discussion will become unwieldy if we deal with every aspect but it does leap out at me that according to your argument "alternative music" should be a sub-section on the "rock music" page - it is not a genre, but a collection of genres; it is defined (hazily) by both what it is not and where it (mostly) comes from and the term has changed its meaning over time. QED. Btljs (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Simon Frith is quite a good place to start on this. One way of looking at it, I think, is if you take any country in isolation, it will have popular music which may be of any genres that are locally popular. It only gets pop music by contact with the wider (global/western influenced) genres. The two will start separately and later combine to add that country's own stamp on pop. Btljs (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Your last two sentences are entirely correct. But you have proposed a merge not a clean-up, which I have disagreed with and nothing you have said above changes my mind, sorry. I am scrupulous in only posting when I have reliable references and that would be the case with this article - but it takes a long time and a good (or bad) proportion of WP wouldn't exist if you just removed unsourced and badly sourced material, as this is an ongoing project. I don't feel the need to jump just because you keep asking "where are the sources...?" - a quick scan (Google in the colloquial) before writing my first comment confirmed that there are sources which deal with the differences between pop and popular music but I haven't had time to appraise them yet and I don't want to leave myself open to a straw man argument by quoting them. The point is, like any decent trial, the defence is given the opportunity to prepare its case before action is taken. So the "status quo supporters" (which I originally read as fans of Status Quo, which is funny because I would argue that they perfectly illustrate the point at which rock becomes pop and how this changes over a few decades) aren't supporting the page as it is, but as it should be. I think this discussion will become unwieldy if we deal with every aspect but it does leap out at me that according to your argument "alternative music" should be a sub-section on the "rock music" page - it is not a genre, but a collection of genres; it is defined (hazily) by both what it is not and where it (mostly) comes from and the term has changed its meaning over time. QED. Btljs (talk) 07:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment That is not a definition, nor concrete attributions (e.g., ‘middle ground’, 'when it’s not in extremes’, ‘when it’s not this or that'), but it is a completely reasonable concept, and solid notions for improving historical context in particular. Where are the reliable sources directly supporting such notions? And again why is it believed such ambiguousness is grounds for a separate article from popular music, as opposed to dedicating a section to it as ‘pop music as a subcategory’ or ‘pop music as a subset of popular music’. No status quo supporter has given concrete reasons or concrete references. It’s still grounded in original research, and in the spirit of such, you ask anyone on any street today what pop is, they will not be able to give you genre definition (just like no one has here); people will relate it to terms like ‘hooks’ ‘mainstream’ , ‘commercial’ ‘melody’, ‘major label’, perhaps attribute a ‘lack of substance’. And plenty of commercially successful genres fall under such attributions. No one can define it as a musical genre, which is what the existence of the separate article claims; no reliable sources so far that concretely define it as a genre per se, on its own right, with its own sonic and stylistic attributions… but still support for keeping a separate Wiki page on it remains. "So, if you take rock, which is well established in pop, at its most melodious, when it creates short songs with a hook, verse chorus structure etc.” What is ‘it’s most melodic’? What is ‘short’? Where are the operational definitions? Rock is a massive genre, with metal and grunge as two of its numerous subgenres, and two of its commercially successful (and that includes many others). Most of rock is melodic; numerous rock songs, particularly the well-known ones, are short; most of rock has ‘hooks’ (i.e., a musical phrase, riff, etc, that grab's the listener’s ear [no rock or metal riff musician will say they do not like writing or performing attention-grabbing riffs), much of rock employs a verse-chorus structure (even some of experimental or avant-garde rock)... so what is the basis for this notion that rock is then ‘pop music’ (as a genre) because of that? I think I've made clear pointing out the inadequacies of such arguments, which are ok colloquially, where denotation and referencing is not normally used, but poor for an encyclopedic article. "I don't think you can successfully argue for a separate article on "dream pop" but not "pop" - that's like having an article on "hard rock" but not “rock” - you can, whereby, for instance, the existence of articles on both indie music and indie rock are legitimate. Dream pop is a sub genre of alternative music, which has many subgenres also often melded and jumbled, and alternative music too received significant mainstream attention in the 90s. A commercially successful alternative act doing dream pop or some related style does not place them in some hazy, supposed ‘pop music' genre but it does make them a pop artist, vis a vis playing popular music. This continues to exemplify the logic on the redundancy of both terms, not to mention how ill-defined this one is. "you still need to understand global pop music to understand what it is” What is ‘global pop music’, is it not simply popular music, and in what specific way is it different from the supposedly-contrasted ‘pop music’? And where are the sources backing this up? We all agree both articles need significant revision. In the meantime, it needs to be noted on the article (by means of revelant tagging) that, in its present form, it is not fully reliable and that it needs work.--Lpdte77 (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Trends
Since this this study was endorsed by the Smithsonian, it should be designated as a credible study, and should fall within wikipedian standards. The study has been restored on the page RomanGrandpa (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am unsure that it is notable and a blog on the Smithsonian website is not a reliable source.--SabreBD (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- The study itself, though, may be worthy of a summary sentence or two, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Ghmyrtle. The study is interesting and finds trends in the development of pop music BUT never mentions it getting worse or comments on how adventurous its creators are. It suggests a mechanism for identifying how we know if we are listening to an old or a new song. Btljs (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- The study itself, though, may be worthy of a summary sentence or two, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Well I don't understand all the technical nuances of the original study, I just know what my ears are telling me, and apparently, the smithsonian agrees with me, and so does this poll!!!! RomanGrandpa (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Multiple issues
Could someone explain the multiple issues tags on this article please? They seem extraordinary claims give the level of reliable sourcing.--SabreBD (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- They were added in this edit, and presumably relate to the editor's arguments stated at length in the thread up above. But I don't see any other editors agreeing with those arguments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Ghmyrtle. I had not realised they were related to that argument. I will hang on a bit and see if there is any wider support before removing them.--SabreBD (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the boilerplate is particularly helpful to anyone wanting to improve the article. Why is it confusing? Where is the OR, given a hefty number of references? What is it biased towards? Better to put them on the actual sections they apply to apart from the 'worldwide perspective' one as there isn't a section - although there should be. So I'm taking the others off. Btljs (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ghmyrtle, Sabrebd, Btljs, actually, if you read the discussion, particularly toward end, you see that the templates are not do with my suggestion to merge the topic. You can see that in particular the editor Btljs agreed that the article needs significant improvement. Ghmyrtle also had stated above that the article needs improvement. And it appears, given that Sabrebd does not realize they were related to that discussion, that he did not bother to read anything after his initial comment. The article is unbalanced toward certain viewpoints, does not represent a worldwide view of the subject and contains original research. Editors here now don't seem to find anything wrong with the article? A Request for Comment may be helpful. --Lpdte77 (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did and it can (be improved). In general, if I think an article may be biased then I look for stuff on the opposing point of view (as I did when there was a section saying that it was in decline). My problem is that I've read lots (well, some) articles and bits of books and I can't find anybody who has any confusion about the difference between pop and popular music. Btljs (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, its always good to get a discussion off to a good start with a personal insult, but moving on, the point is that there is not a consensus here over the OR, or that the article is unclear. I think there is some sort of agreement over the globalisation issue and I think it is probably fine to have that tag until the issue is resolved, which I think it can be. Agreeing that the article can be improved, and I would share that view, does not mean that the particular issues are agreed to be the main problems.--SabreBD (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- If you consider my commenting that you not knowing it had to do with that discussion indicated that you did not read the rest of the discussion, as "name-calling, profanity, derogatory references, harassment" (definitions on the link you gave)....ok. I'll concede the comment it unnecessary/irrelevant. But, uncivil/an attack? Please. Apologies if you were offended. --Lpdte77 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, its always good to get a discussion off to a good start with a personal insult, but moving on, the point is that there is not a consensus here over the OR, or that the article is unclear. I think there is some sort of agreement over the globalisation issue and I think it is probably fine to have that tag until the issue is resolved, which I think it can be. Agreeing that the article can be improved, and I would share that view, does not mean that the particular issues are agreed to be the main problems.--SabreBD (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did and it can (be improved). In general, if I think an article may be biased then I look for stuff on the opposing point of view (as I did when there was a section saying that it was in decline). My problem is that I've read lots (well, some) articles and bits of books and I can't find anybody who has any confusion about the difference between pop and popular music. Btljs (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Ghmyrtle. I had not realised they were related to that argument. I will hang on a bit and see if there is any wider support before removing them.--SabreBD (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Given that WP articles have talk pages that can go back a decade already, not reading pages of comments is really not a valid criticism. It might be helpful Lpdte77 if you summarised 1. what is biased & 2. what is OR for future editors. Supporting sources would be good too. Btljs (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Sabrebd and Btljs. In my view, all articles - virtually without exception - need improvement. It's not helpful in the slightest for an editor to make comments like "The article is unbalanced toward certain viewpoints, does not represent a worldwide view of the subject and contains original research" - without being a great deal more specific. And, it is utter nonsense to suggest that: "Editors here now don't seem to find anything wrong with the article." There are many articles that need considerable improvement, as well as this one, and individual editors do not have the infinite length of time and resources required to improve all of them. Placing wide-ranging and insufficiently specific improvement templates at the top of the article, despite no-one else on this page appearing to agree with any of the editor's previous specific comments, is not helpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Re your first statement, that is not at all true. Most Wikipedia articles needs some form of improvement, however about 1% of Wikipedia articles are considered technically perfect, for encyclopedic purpose. Of course, theoretically, if new information comes to light that might be relevant for inclusion then that would constitute 'improvement' for any article, but there are articles that are entirely superbly-written, clear, superbly-sourced, accurate, neutral, complete, etc, representing Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose and criteria. There are "good articles", which constitute a slightly larger percentage (this one is currently far from one, with respect to achieving Wikipedia's standard). Actually, I recently finished finalizing some copy edits on a song's article, that should soon be featured on the main page, which needs no further improvements of a marginally-significant kind (beyond perhaps shorting a citation or two, accordance to taste, the like), but I digress. Ghmyrtle, it is helpful to point out the general problems of an article as a start. "There are many articles that need considerable improvement, as well as this one, and individual editors do not have the infinite length of time and resources required to improve all of them.", I completely agree; doesn't mean that this article (or any other in particular) should be exempt from any significant improvements it needs (that of course ought to be pointed out). And what you deemed "utter nonsense" was a summarizing, rhetorical question, that contextually preceded the suggestion to do a Request for Comment. Thanks. "Placing wide-ranging and insufficiently specific improvement templates..." , yet editors here only want to keep the 'not representing worldwide view' temp. Anyhow, Re to the request, reasons can't be added to those templates I believe (and I do detect a lack of neutrality here on the template issue and not recognizing the original research present, and an unbalanced writing/reporting of viewpoints/sources [which is partly related to the world wide issue] - I mean, it helps to click on the links in the template or look up the Wiki articles on the issues to be refreshed on all that constitutes such, and then read over the article). But yes I will revisit the article and point out the lacking, inaccurate, inconsistent and whatnot, later as my focus on Wiki is for the time being on a few other articles, and been rather busy in life too. So I'll get back to this particular issue when I can devote my full attention. Take a look at the top yellow section of this page. And I do recommend a Request for Comment (on the issues noted here). Other, outside editors' opinions might prove useful. Cheers.Lpdte77 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- You know, it really doesn't help your case to be quite so patronising. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Like you criticize a lack of specificity on use of templates, I point out your calling my post patronizing, without anything to substantiate (in fact you provided nothing of substance/relevance to my reply). Nothing in my post was patronizing, I responded directly to your remarks, some of which where actually patronizing (and I didn't label as such), and offered helpful suggestions. Perhaps you felt patronized by my saying that I'm currently not focused on this? Regardless, it's not my job to sugar coat things and make sure you are not offended by my pointing problems on this article or attitudes toward improving in replying to your patronizing remarks. Like I said, I'll come back to this when I can. In the meantime, you guys can either take my suggestion, disregard it, or continue improving the article yourselves. I.e., do as you wish and good luck. I'm just one editor here, as was pointed out. Again, I strongly recommend bring other editors here to discuss this. --Lpdte77 (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- "song's article, that should soon be featured on the main page, which needs no further improvements of a marginally-significant kind" - too long in my opinion: check out the section which includes details of chart placings in different countries in a text paragraph, also too much on production. This much detail more appropriate for an album than a song. Which just goes to show that one editor's perfection is another's need for improvement. Btljs (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- The article's been a Featured Article for 7 years, it's been reviewed multiple times. It's not some album song, it's a James Bond theme by a famous, popular band. There was a lot of publicity from speculation on whether the band would be chosen, to the choosing of the band, the recording process, the lawsuit, music video, etc. There's no limit on the length of an article with a notable subject and notable information, and the length here, which isn't particularly noteworthy, is completely warranted; all notable information that has been included. As a featured article, it, naturally, meets Wiki's FA's strict criteria and reader's experience standard: "Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information." Remember, the purpose of Wikipedia is strictly encyclopedic. If your last statement is meant to be in reference to this article's issues, then it is not at all applicable here. This article has, objectively, multiple issues (the most obvious being that it's very incomplete) and needs significant improvements, something that is alluded to on the yellow section at the top of this page (note: click 'show' next to the of interest sections). It's currently not even close to reaching the standards of a Good Article. Because its few resident editors do not wish to realize this does not make it incorrect or insignificant. I can assure you if you bring various outside editors in here, particularly ones familiar with music genres articles (you can try editors on the "Music genres task force" linked above in the top yellow section), a consensus would be the same conclusion, and will likely point out specific issues within the article. I suggest taking a look at the alternative rock article as a guide; it is currently rated a Good Article, but content/scope-wise not close to FA status of course. Actually, Rock music, a Good Article, is a better guide for this. --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to be labouring under the misconception that I have some personal attachment to this article as your robust defence of the Bond theme article seems to imply you have to that. I stated way above that I agreed that this article needs improvement before your lengthy contributions. You just seem to want to shoot down anybody who stands in the way of your crusade to stamp out some sort of bias (which you have yet to give ANY source to support) and OR (which you haven't specified), preferring instead to insult, patronise and imply that you have a greater understanding of what an encyclopedia should be than any of the other editors who have commented. That being said, I can't see any further purpose in exchanging views on this talk page until somebody makes some concrete suggestion as to how the article is changed. I have to say that I try not to look at other articles to provide a benchmark of what is a "Good Article" (sic) because that reeks of navel gazing to me and creates homogenisation and complacency and your use of capitalisation and quoting back WP lore at me reinforces my view that the worst place to look to try and improve WP is by looking at WP. Ultimately WP should serve its readers and not its editors and I think there are a number of readers who might not find "The World Is Not Enough" debuted at No. 40 in Austria and remained at that position for four weeks. that notable or the endless citing of an appeal hearing in the lengthy 'Composition' paragraph. If something is cited more that a couple of times in the same section on the same subject then I'd rather just read the original if I need that much detail. But I won't seek to "assure you" that other editors would reach the "same conclusion" as me because my views are my views and I try to remain open minded. I look forward to constructive well-supported changes or suggestions for changes to this article. Btljs (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I’m not under any misconception, I’m responding directly to the comments, correcting where needed. If you did not like my response because it corrected your misconception, that is not my issue, it's yours. I see nothing in my response that said you have a personal attachment to an article (although the nature of your response could indicate otherwise). My "robust defence” on the Bond theme article is merely the response to your misguided criticism of it, clearly. And I’ve no personal attachment to that article, I did not create it nor did I write the vast majority of information on it. I was merely asked to copy edit it. You and others above seem to be under some misconception that your notions are untouchable and that it is an insult and patronizing to directly respond and/or correct them. What have I been "shooting down"? Obviously, the notion that this article does not have multiple issues and that it does not need any template(s) to alert readers and other editors that it needs significant improvements. If my giving suggestions to take a look at the top of this page, and a look at good genre articles as a guide is “insulting" and “patronizing" to you, then, again, that is your issue, your misconception, not mine. If you feel insulted because I stated the purpose of Wikipedia (encyclopedic) and this article is not yet encyclopedic, and what constitutes a good article, which this is objectively not by such standards, that is your issue, not mine (again, though I haven't, one can conclude, judging by your response, that you might indeed have some personal attachment, particularly when contextualizing your steadfast refusal/"shooting down" of the merging suggestion). If you extrapolated from my correction of misinformation and helpful suggestions that I’m saying I’m better than you or know more than you ((Personal attack removed)), thats your issue, not mine. "I try not to look at other articles to provide a benchmark of what is a "Good Article” - that’s your misguided way then, and not what is the norm here. Wiki suggests looking at similar/same-category/subject articles for guidance, and many long-time editors that have created articles for instance (I haven’t) suggest this too. Again, Wikipedia’s purpose is encyclopedia (is that insulting?). Looking at similar good articles along with the Wikipedia Manual of Style and other related articles can definitely be helpful, and is widely recommended. It is not navel-gazing at all; that’s faulty reasoning (and actually patronizing and insulting) applied to using other articles/Wiki suggestions for guidance or as a template. If I may put forth my own judgement (as you did here), your notion is very presumptuous and arrogant. Whether you look to other articles for guidance is your decision, but calling others navel-gazers for doing so is patronizing and very hypocritical. "WP lore at me reinforces my view that the worst place to look to try and improve WP is by looking at WP. Ultimately WP should serve its readers and not its editors” - you’re under the misconception that your notion here is correct or shared by a majority. That is incredibly misguided. Wikipedia, by guiding and providing benchmark for its editors, serves both editors and readers. If you as an editor on Wikipedia don’t care to follow anything Wikipedia says then you’re in the wrong place (Personal attack removed). Even more so, that you state above you do not look to Wikipedia for a benchmark of what is a good encyclopedic article on Wikipedia. That puts things in greater context here. "I think there are a number of readers who might not find "The World Is Not Enough" debuted at No. 40 in Austria and remained at that position for four weeks.” I don't care for that information, so might not many other people. That can be the case for any information that doesn't serve your personal interest or curiosity. However, it is information part of the commercial performance on the article's subject, wherein international markets outside of the UK are also relevant, particularly when dealing with such a commercial, international topic, such as James Bond theme song. I will refrain from judging here. "Or the endless citing of an appeal hearing in the lengthy 'Composition’ paragraph” You mean the summarizing of the copyright infringement case in the copyright infringement section. I shall refrain. "I can't see any further purpose in exchanging views on this talk page until somebody makes some concrete suggestion as to how the article is changed” - precisely. I’m responding to replies to my comment. I'd clearly stated that I do not have the time or focus for this right now, and, for the dozenth time, strongly suggest you bring other editors in here to point things out for you. Now If I go by how repeatedly you guys have ignored this suggestion, I can easily conclude that you don’t want to do so. I'm done replying to what is now off-topic commentary, particularly as they were largely perpetuated in criticism of a linked article for the purpose of making an misguided point. I will personally come back to this issue when I can focus on reading through the article and citations.--Lpdte77 (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I don't respond to people who call me "buddy". I have reported you for personal insults. Btljs (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry? I don't know where you're from, but where I'm from 'buddy' is equivalent to 'friend'/'my friend', as in 'wrong place, my friend'. I look up buddy in the dictionary and see no insult as a definition, only 'bud', 'to be a companion' and 'be on friendly terms'. If you have a wildly different definition I'd be curious to know what it is actually, I've never come across one. Oh, for the record, since some 'personal attack removed' tag you added replaced a phrase on my previous post, the phrase was (in response to an accusation of me supposedly thinking I'm above the user merely for giving a suggestion to look at other Wiki articles for guidance): "some childish notion conjured up". The other tag is covering up 'buddy', I won't say laughably because maybe the user does consider a different meaning not included in the dictionary for the word. --Lpdte77 (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I don't respond to people who call me "buddy". I have reported you for personal insults. Btljs (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I’m not under any misconception, I’m responding directly to the comments, correcting where needed. If you did not like my response because it corrected your misconception, that is not my issue, it's yours. I see nothing in my response that said you have a personal attachment to an article (although the nature of your response could indicate otherwise). My "robust defence” on the Bond theme article is merely the response to your misguided criticism of it, clearly. And I’ve no personal attachment to that article, I did not create it nor did I write the vast majority of information on it. I was merely asked to copy edit it. You and others above seem to be under some misconception that your notions are untouchable and that it is an insult and patronizing to directly respond and/or correct them. What have I been "shooting down"? Obviously, the notion that this article does not have multiple issues and that it does not need any template(s) to alert readers and other editors that it needs significant improvements. If my giving suggestions to take a look at the top of this page, and a look at good genre articles as a guide is “insulting" and “patronizing" to you, then, again, that is your issue, your misconception, not mine. If you feel insulted because I stated the purpose of Wikipedia (encyclopedic) and this article is not yet encyclopedic, and what constitutes a good article, which this is objectively not by such standards, that is your issue, not mine (again, though I haven't, one can conclude, judging by your response, that you might indeed have some personal attachment, particularly when contextualizing your steadfast refusal/"shooting down" of the merging suggestion). If you extrapolated from my correction of misinformation and helpful suggestions that I’m saying I’m better than you or know more than you ((Personal attack removed)), thats your issue, not mine. "I try not to look at other articles to provide a benchmark of what is a "Good Article” - that’s your misguided way then, and not what is the norm here. Wiki suggests looking at similar/same-category/subject articles for guidance, and many long-time editors that have created articles for instance (I haven’t) suggest this too. Again, Wikipedia’s purpose is encyclopedia (is that insulting?). Looking at similar good articles along with the Wikipedia Manual of Style and other related articles can definitely be helpful, and is widely recommended. It is not navel-gazing at all; that’s faulty reasoning (and actually patronizing and insulting) applied to using other articles/Wiki suggestions for guidance or as a template. If I may put forth my own judgement (as you did here), your notion is very presumptuous and arrogant. Whether you look to other articles for guidance is your decision, but calling others navel-gazers for doing so is patronizing and very hypocritical. "WP lore at me reinforces my view that the worst place to look to try and improve WP is by looking at WP. Ultimately WP should serve its readers and not its editors” - you’re under the misconception that your notion here is correct or shared by a majority. That is incredibly misguided. Wikipedia, by guiding and providing benchmark for its editors, serves both editors and readers. If you as an editor on Wikipedia don’t care to follow anything Wikipedia says then you’re in the wrong place (Personal attack removed). Even more so, that you state above you do not look to Wikipedia for a benchmark of what is a good encyclopedic article on Wikipedia. That puts things in greater context here. "I think there are a number of readers who might not find "The World Is Not Enough" debuted at No. 40 in Austria and remained at that position for four weeks.” I don't care for that information, so might not many other people. That can be the case for any information that doesn't serve your personal interest or curiosity. However, it is information part of the commercial performance on the article's subject, wherein international markets outside of the UK are also relevant, particularly when dealing with such a commercial, international topic, such as James Bond theme song. I will refrain from judging here. "Or the endless citing of an appeal hearing in the lengthy 'Composition’ paragraph” You mean the summarizing of the copyright infringement case in the copyright infringement section. I shall refrain. "I can't see any further purpose in exchanging views on this talk page until somebody makes some concrete suggestion as to how the article is changed” - precisely. I’m responding to replies to my comment. I'd clearly stated that I do not have the time or focus for this right now, and, for the dozenth time, strongly suggest you bring other editors in here to point things out for you. Now If I go by how repeatedly you guys have ignored this suggestion, I can easily conclude that you don’t want to do so. I'm done replying to what is now off-topic commentary, particularly as they were largely perpetuated in criticism of a linked article for the purpose of making an misguided point. I will personally come back to this issue when I can focus on reading through the article and citations.--Lpdte77 (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to be labouring under the misconception that I have some personal attachment to this article as your robust defence of the Bond theme article seems to imply you have to that. I stated way above that I agreed that this article needs improvement before your lengthy contributions. You just seem to want to shoot down anybody who stands in the way of your crusade to stamp out some sort of bias (which you have yet to give ANY source to support) and OR (which you haven't specified), preferring instead to insult, patronise and imply that you have a greater understanding of what an encyclopedia should be than any of the other editors who have commented. That being said, I can't see any further purpose in exchanging views on this talk page until somebody makes some concrete suggestion as to how the article is changed. I have to say that I try not to look at other articles to provide a benchmark of what is a "Good Article" (sic) because that reeks of navel gazing to me and creates homogenisation and complacency and your use of capitalisation and quoting back WP lore at me reinforces my view that the worst place to look to try and improve WP is by looking at WP. Ultimately WP should serve its readers and not its editors and I think there are a number of readers who might not find "The World Is Not Enough" debuted at No. 40 in Austria and remained at that position for four weeks. that notable or the endless citing of an appeal hearing in the lengthy 'Composition' paragraph. If something is cited more that a couple of times in the same section on the same subject then I'd rather just read the original if I need that much detail. But I won't seek to "assure you" that other editors would reach the "same conclusion" as me because my views are my views and I try to remain open minded. I look forward to constructive well-supported changes or suggestions for changes to this article. Btljs (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- The article's been a Featured Article for 7 years, it's been reviewed multiple times. It's not some album song, it's a James Bond theme by a famous, popular band. There was a lot of publicity from speculation on whether the band would be chosen, to the choosing of the band, the recording process, the lawsuit, music video, etc. There's no limit on the length of an article with a notable subject and notable information, and the length here, which isn't particularly noteworthy, is completely warranted; all notable information that has been included. As a featured article, it, naturally, meets Wiki's FA's strict criteria and reader's experience standard: "Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information." Remember, the purpose of Wikipedia is strictly encyclopedic. If your last statement is meant to be in reference to this article's issues, then it is not at all applicable here. This article has, objectively, multiple issues (the most obvious being that it's very incomplete) and needs significant improvements, something that is alluded to on the yellow section at the top of this page (note: click 'show' next to the of interest sections). It's currently not even close to reaching the standards of a Good Article. Because its few resident editors do not wish to realize this does not make it incorrect or insignificant. I can assure you if you bring various outside editors in here, particularly ones familiar with music genres articles (you can try editors on the "Music genres task force" linked above in the top yellow section), a consensus would be the same conclusion, and will likely point out specific issues within the article. I suggest taking a look at the alternative rock article as a guide; it is currently rated a Good Article, but content/scope-wise not close to FA status of course. Actually, Rock music, a Good Article, is a better guide for this. --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- "song's article, that should soon be featured on the main page, which needs no further improvements of a marginally-significant kind" - too long in my opinion: check out the section which includes details of chart placings in different countries in a text paragraph, also too much on production. This much detail more appropriate for an album than a song. Which just goes to show that one editor's perfection is another's need for improvement. Btljs (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- Like you criticize a lack of specificity on use of templates, I point out your calling my post patronizing, without anything to substantiate (in fact you provided nothing of substance/relevance to my reply). Nothing in my post was patronizing, I responded directly to your remarks, some of which where actually patronizing (and I didn't label as such), and offered helpful suggestions. Perhaps you felt patronized by my saying that I'm currently not focused on this? Regardless, it's not my job to sugar coat things and make sure you are not offended by my pointing problems on this article or attitudes toward improving in replying to your patronizing remarks. Like I said, I'll come back to this when I can. In the meantime, you guys can either take my suggestion, disregard it, or continue improving the article yourselves. I.e., do as you wish and good luck. I'm just one editor here, as was pointed out. Again, I strongly recommend bring other editors here to discuss this. --Lpdte77 (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- You know, it really doesn't help your case to be quite so patronising. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Re your first statement, that is not at all true. Most Wikipedia articles needs some form of improvement, however about 1% of Wikipedia articles are considered technically perfect, for encyclopedic purpose. Of course, theoretically, if new information comes to light that might be relevant for inclusion then that would constitute 'improvement' for any article, but there are articles that are entirely superbly-written, clear, superbly-sourced, accurate, neutral, complete, etc, representing Wikipedia's encyclopedic purpose and criteria. There are "good articles", which constitute a slightly larger percentage (this one is currently far from one, with respect to achieving Wikipedia's standard). Actually, I recently finished finalizing some copy edits on a song's article, that should soon be featured on the main page, which needs no further improvements of a marginally-significant kind (beyond perhaps shorting a citation or two, accordance to taste, the like), but I digress. Ghmyrtle, it is helpful to point out the general problems of an article as a start. "There are many articles that need considerable improvement, as well as this one, and individual editors do not have the infinite length of time and resources required to improve all of them.", I completely agree; doesn't mean that this article (or any other in particular) should be exempt from any significant improvements it needs (that of course ought to be pointed out). And what you deemed "utter nonsense" was a summarizing, rhetorical question, that contextually preceded the suggestion to do a Request for Comment. Thanks. "Placing wide-ranging and insufficiently specific improvement templates..." , yet editors here only want to keep the 'not representing worldwide view' temp. Anyhow, Re to the request, reasons can't be added to those templates I believe (and I do detect a lack of neutrality here on the template issue and not recognizing the original research present, and an unbalanced writing/reporting of viewpoints/sources [which is partly related to the world wide issue] - I mean, it helps to click on the links in the template or look up the Wiki articles on the issues to be refreshed on all that constitutes such, and then read over the article). But yes I will revisit the article and point out the lacking, inaccurate, inconsistent and whatnot, later as my focus on Wiki is for the time being on a few other articles, and been rather busy in life too. So I'll get back to this particular issue when I can devote my full attention. Take a look at the top yellow section of this page. And I do recommend a Request for Comment (on the issues noted here). Other, outside editors' opinions might prove useful. Cheers.Lpdte77 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Sabrebd and Btljs. In my view, all articles - virtually without exception - need improvement. It's not helpful in the slightest for an editor to make comments like "The article is unbalanced toward certain viewpoints, does not represent a worldwide view of the subject and contains original research" - without being a great deal more specific. And, it is utter nonsense to suggest that: "Editors here now don't seem to find anything wrong with the article." There are many articles that need considerable improvement, as well as this one, and individual editors do not have the infinite length of time and resources required to improve all of them. Placing wide-ranging and insufficiently specific improvement templates at the top of the article, despite no-one else on this page appearing to agree with any of the editor's previous specific comments, is not helpful. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Given that WP articles have talk pages that can go back a decade already, not reading pages of comments is really not a valid criticism. It might be helpful Lpdte77 if you summarised 1. what is biased & 2. what is OR for future editors. Supporting sources would be good too. Btljs (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Globalise
Trying to do some research on the globablisation of pop music I have come to the conclusion that the "globalise" tag is not really valid either. Almost a half of the development section is about this and although the aritcle does not give examples, it doesn't do that for western pop music either. I do not think there is a lot can usefully done on this topic that is not done by the infobox in pointing to national forms. I think we need to remove that tag.--SabreBD (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- So your logic here is, I can't improve it (or I can't find the information) therefore it does not need improvement. By Wiki policy, information that is not correctly sourced, not verifiable, is in any respect original research, etc, needs to either be corrected or deleted. Tags and templates are there for a reason, and that is to alert editors that parts or the entirety of an article needs to be looked at and improved upon. An article like this one, that needs to be significantly revised, and for which finding/reporting wide-ranging information might be a long process, possibly a of multiple editors's contributions, should have relevant template(s) on it, and perhaps tagged in specific parts, until its issues are resolved. And they should be in place more so if it can't or won't be improved upon for encyclopedic purposes. It is suspect why the users here do not want templates on the articles, which is why I remarked detecting a lack of neutrality here. --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please state simply and concisely, how the globalisation of this article can be improved.--SabreBD (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- ...and please note WP:OVERTAG: "Placing tags is, in itself, not a means of improving the encyclopedia: It is only a means of asking other people to improve an article that you cannot or will not improve yourself." Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I did not say overtag the article. Let's see…no, I did not, I said "perhaps tagged in specific parts, until its issues are resolved", and I said, "Tags and templates are there for a reason, and that is to alert editors that parts or the entirety of an article needs to be looked at and improved upon”; What is said in the essay linked (which I’ve read before btw). I also refer you to another essay linked there, WP:RESPTAG: "We have to admit that many Wikipedia articles have serious problems which require painstakingly careful and time-consuming editing to fix, and which render their content quite unreliable even for the most error-tolerant applications. It is necessary to clearly tag such articles, preferably with a shrill color, until someone comes along who has both the time, inclination and domain expertise to carefully edit the article and solve its most pressing problem." See also, WP:BURDEN, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:ONUS. Good luck in the meantime.--Lpdte77 (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- ...and please note WP:OVERTAG: "Placing tags is, in itself, not a means of improving the encyclopedia: It is only a means of asking other people to improve an article that you cannot or will not improve yourself." Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please state simply and concisely, how the globalisation of this article can be improved.--SabreBD (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I tend to put the globalise tag because it's hard to shake off my western European anglo-whatever viewpoint. I feel guilty if I put a 'needs references' tag or whatever because it nags at me that I should be finding them myself. My suggestions for globalisation therefore, are tricky otherwise I would have done them:
- We need something that moves the article away from "pop grew out of rock and roll and conquered the world" towards "in this area some of the features of imported pop were combined with local styles to produce this new fusion, which then influenced international artists & global pop as a whole". Europop is mentioned but what of Japanese influences, Korea, Russia and Eastern Europe, African, Middle East...? There's a kind of link up with teenage culture around the world which has bloomed at different times in different places. Btljs (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- It may be possible to find sources that indicate the growth of various pop industries across the world (but again, this is just listing). The problem with saying more interesting things about the spread of pop music culture is that someone else, who is authoritative, has to say it first. I am happy to wait while someone does a search for that kind of statement. I did a search, but I didn't find it. That does not mean it isn't out there. The problem is that tags are only reasonable if they indicate what is obviously missing, but, if in a reasonable time, its existence cannot be demonstrated, then they just become wishes.--SabreBD (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
New Images
Added new images of 1990s pop prices to show the generation development of pop music.2602:306:CC1F:9380:3590:B880:4AA9:72FC (talk)
Recent name change
There was no discussion here of the recent name change. So I will revert it while we discuss it here. So please tell us, why do you think the name of this page should be changed? DougHill (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Move article page to Pop (musical genre)
I think the article page should be moved for it to be more specific.[1] Rmdl2006 (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL we do not categorise articles like that without good reason. There is no need to add (musical genre) to the title as people will search for Pop music not Pop (musical genre) and there is no need to disambiguate the article title as there are not two articles on different subjects that want the same page. On a separate note please see WP:MOVES for the correct way of requesting a page move. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 08:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Reference error
A user needs to fix the reference error in the article. I tried but was reverted for some odd reason.
82.11.190.122 (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- I was confused about your edit and then further about the various Frith citations. I think I have it fixed now but would appreciate you or anyone else double checking to make sure at least those citations are correct now. SQGibbon (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your civility on the matter. It was pretty confusing to me as well. The best solution I found for the time being was to just change one of the tags, as you saw. One of us had better contact the original editor of the page and check, if they are still around.
- 82.11.190.122 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
- ^ "SoundClick Genres". Retrieved December 9, 2014.