Talk:Emo (slang)/Archive 4

message: ;Support
#ZayZayEM 03:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: There is an insufficient context on the page now, added here with an edit summary of: "Marked intro with {context}. The only clue on the subject came to me at the bottom of the article". I was under the impression that when such tags are added, one is supposed to fully explain the problem on a new (or preexisting) section in the talk page. I have no idea what the bottom of the page (nor "clues" to this editor) has to do with the introduction and the context it provides. I see no rationale for including this tag - perhaps I am wrong, but I see no context issues. The {context} tag is for articles like this or this or this. I don't see a problem with our introduction - perhaps it is a bit too brief, but the article itself isn't very long, and we need not be redundant. Any thoughts? --Cheeser1 17:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the intro seems fine to me. --J-stan TalkContribs 18:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficient context? 

message: i think the article about Emo should just say "a subject in which people argue and run around in cirlces either defending or going out of their way to insult emos". how in the world does this invoke so much anger??? i know this: whether you love them or hate them, you can't stop talking about them --Zuki2love 03:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emo summary 

message: The current image shows 'a typical emo's Myspace picture.' I think the older picture was a much better representation of emo style hair. Could the old picture be brought back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M2K 2 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture was deleted a few days ago. Also, sign your posts with four ~~~~. // DecaimientoPoético 23:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The old image was never deleted, just removed from this page. I have changed it back. --Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 17:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I uploaded a picture that I feel is more appropriate. I hope this helps your concern. --Lazorz 23:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Someone should mention and include that classic Myspace emo profile picture, camera held up high, dark lighting, fringe brushed to one side, sad look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.219.29 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We actually do. It's the first picture in the box. --J-stan Talk 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classic Emo picture 

message: I support to add the following "see-also"
*Adolescence
*Counterculture
*History of subcultures in the 20th century
*Lifestyle
*Popular culture
*Youth subculture
I invite everyone to read carefully my (short) above posts, and then write their opinions within this section. Thanks. --Doktor Who 00:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This poll is irrelevent. See alsos are not for pages that necessarily are connected to this article. They are for pages that provide context for information, contrast and comparison. Even if "Emo" in this article is not a clearly defined and established subculture, these pages certainly are going to be of interest to people looking at this page. I ahve restored them, except the History of subculture link and Lifestyle link. The former will require us to further establish the ongoing dispute on this page. The latter is not entirely relevant enough. --ZayZayEM 00:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding back in contentions material after it has been reverted out of an article is a violation of WP:BRD and creates an edit-war atmosphere. If you want to discuss it, discuss it, but don't revert a revert - it disrupts the collective editing process and is counterproductive and ungracious. See-alsos are not supposed to be laundry lists of tangential or unrelated topics. Except for adolescence, I see no reason to have this see also section, and I'm fairly sure a link to adolescence can be integrated into the article, which mentions teenagers repeatedly. --Cheeser1 02:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --J-stan TalkContribs 02:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Cheeser1 04:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you, at least my very little contribute to the improvement of this article didn't end up in a total waste of time, indeed someone wikilinked adolescence. In my opinion, we need to wait for some years in order to  discover whether this "youth scene-slang-fashion" becomes the subject of sociological studies or if it becomes a forgotten topic. --Doktor Who 23:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: Alright, I've read through the above thread and thought about it a bit. There are really two issues here:
#The current title, depicting the article as "slang," is an inappropriate title, as it implies a different topic
#The article should be moved to title such as "Emo subculture" or "Emo (subculture)."
Can we agree on the first point and go from there? --The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I agree on the first - why is it an inappropriate title? Ideally it would just be emo (as with other slang/stereotype terms like chav, preppy), but there's the problem that emo is the disambiguation page. We could move it to emo (disambiguation), but this depends on whether editors thing that this meaning of the word is significantly more common than the other meanings (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page_naming_conventions). There may be better names than the current article title, but I'm not sure that this is a bad title? --Mdwh 17:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a slang term. That has been sourced, and I can't understand why there's any dispute about that. You ask us to simply agree on that point, but provide no explanation other than "it implies a different topic." In fact, it implies exactly this topic. "Emo" as presented in this article, is a slang term that describes fashion, style, particular people, vague musical categories, emotional states, and many other things. How is it inappropriate? --Cheeser1 19:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, I would support to move this article to Emo (subculture; can we ask support/help at the Sociology wikiproject and portal?--Doktor Who 23:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The move has already been considered, and failed its nomination for moving due to lack of consensus and lack of reliable sources. No reliable sociological source has been found to substantiate the claim that emo is a subculture (see archive 5 of this discussion page). Saying that it is violates original research policies, and I am not the only one to opposite on this (and other) grounds. Please do not add such content to the article until at least after you have suggested such changes (I have reverted your addition of several subculture-related links/categories). --Cheeser1 23:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not revert my edits at Emo (slang). I added a see-also-section because it is important for both the ones-that-believe-that-emo-is-a-subculture and their opponents, indeed such section provide any reader with a sort of introduction to the wide and loose topic of "youth movements, countercultures and subcultures". See-also-sections are meant to give the reader the broadest picture of the topic, its analogies and its differences with other topics and are usually very different from "refernces" sections.--Doktor Who 23:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The see-also topics you added are a broad spectrum of sociological terminology, but no sociological data is present in the article (save that which is added in violation of WP:SYN). Until this is an article that is reliably known to be a subculture of any sort, linking to those sorts of categories and articles is inappropriate. Emo is not a culture, counterculture, or youth movement (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) until a reliable source says it is. --Cheeser1 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And keep in mind that boldly adding such content should not be re-added to the article, according to policy,  until consensus is formed to do so (which may be hard, given that there are no sources to justify all of those see-also links in any way). --Cheeser1 00:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Additionally, please look at your edit summary: Im sure that can be useful for a broader perspective of this subject please do not revert without asking more, Im not a "newbie" in sociology!! You seem to believe that what you think is useful is somehow a guideline for what content should go in this article. Linking to terms that have no established connection to emo is misleading and inappropriate. Furthermore, your status as a source of sociological information is irrelevant. You could hold four Ph.Ds in sociology, it wouldn't matter, because you are not a source of information, even if you "think" that the information might be relevant. --Cheeser1 00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the scientific method, and science is my main interest. I dislike the word emo, the emo world and its slang. I don't think that a music genre named "emo" exists. Adding some more links can support this perspective, I'm not against you, you are misunderstanding me. This word emo is just one of those words invented by some pèress in order to create a commercial slogan, and sell music, magazines, and so on. ^_^ cheers. --Doktor Who 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems clear that your perspective on this article is colored by your personal issues with emo music and emo things. Trying to lead people to unrelated or irrelevant topics is not what the see-also section is for, especially if you're doing it to support some ludicrous agenda or perspective you have about how emo doesn't exist. --Cheeser1 00:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not insinuating you are a vandal, just I suspect that, since you have never seen me before at this article, you were somewhat regarding me as a noobie. I have no "agenda", but, unlike you, I want to give other readers the chance to seek more info on simiilar, related and unrelated topics. Please note that I've smiled to you, if you do not stop your aggressive tone, I will report you for violating WP:OWN and WP:HAR. --Doktor Who 00:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheeser. Please do not wikilawyer. WP:IGNORE is probably the best rule in the world. Please consider WP:AGF; WP:BITE and WP:DIK. --ZayZayEM 00:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: ZayZayEM is calling me a dick (if he'd linked it to the article correctly, you'd find information explaining, among other things, that calling someone a dick flippantly is just as much being a dick as anything). Interesting that he popped into another conversation, this time just to call me a dick and tell me that IAR is (apparently) the best rule (in other words, to once again tell me that he doesn't care that I want to talk about policy, since he'll just ignore it if he disagrees with me). --Cheeser1 02:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like policy a lot. I cite it quite frequently. But I also tend to pay attention to more than one policy. (which usually really annoys people). Just sticking to one policy and just saying that its the end of a discussion is a very WP:DICK thing to do. I am not calling you a dick. I am asking you to consider the appearance of your actions to any other editor here. You are not discussing, you are repeating a single line and thinking that it solves everything. It's not going anywhere. If you are goingto revert a good faith edit, YOU should be the one to start a discussion on talk page (especially if you say "see talk"); otherwise a reversion of reversion is entirely warranted. Your reversion is pushing your own agenda, and calling people names (or arguing about who called people names first) really isn't going to solve anything. --ZayZayEM 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More than one policy? The only policy I've seen cited to support inclusion of "subculture" is WP:IGNORE. Regardless, I've been discussing things thoroughly with all interested parties, but the most relevant policy appears to be WP:OR, specifically WP:SYN. I'm not saying "I'm right you're wrong end of discussion." I'm simply citing policy and trying to be as straightforward and clear in my explanation of why and how it applies.  I said "see talk" and didn't start a new section because there is already plenty of discussion about the "subculture" issue here already. If you want to take the moral high ground and say that accusing people of violating WP:DICK is childish and "isn't going to solve anything" then why did you do it?? Because you seem to think I have an "agenda" that I'm "pushing." --Cheeser1 04:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, back to the main issue--how about Emo (meme)? My issue with the current name is that it indicates the article is giving a short dictionary definition of a slang word or describing the vernacular of those people who identify as emo. --The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, why "meme"? --J-stan TalkContribs 20:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The components of this article do not describe a subculture, which has its own forms of folkways and mores between its members as well as a set of common beliefs. "Fashion" and "Music" don't work either, because this is really a combination of both. "Meme" may sound to minimal, but I think we're on the right track if we acknowledge that it exists as more of a large, long-term meme. Maybe "scene" would be the optimum word? --The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "scene" would confuse some because "scene" is a slang term describing a fashion similar to emo. If we decide to move it at all, i think it should just be moved to Emo (slang term). --J-stan TalkContribs 21:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I don't see why Emo (slang) is any different than Emo (slang term). The parenthetical is only there to distinguish emo (music) - a music term - from emo (slang) - a slang term. The addition of "term" would be completely superfluous. The other ideas are good, but not optimal. I'm sure we could list ideas forever, but I can't think of any that make any more sense than Emo (slang). --Cheeser1 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "That's why were here ;-) Anyway, so we're looking for a word somewhere between "meme," "scene," "subculture," and "slang" ...anyone have the magic word that will end this thread? --The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Slang" by itself seems grammatically incorrect. It sounds almost as if the article covers the form of slang associated with Emo, even though there really isn't one. --J-stan TalkContribs 22:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: How 'bout "Sub-slang Scmeme" :) --J-stan TalkContribs 22:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Slang by itself tells us what kind of term emo is. Here it is a slang term, while there it is a music term. That's the point of disambig. words in parentheses. See Prism (geometry) and my explanation of all that below. It doesn't really have to seem "grammatically correct" - it's in a title, and a title is not a sentence. The prism article does not cover the form of geometry associated with prisms. --Cheeser1 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ikiroid and the Dok weigh in

message: I'd be quite happy with emo (scene). The current article just doesn't describe use of emo as a slang term to me.  It's about the word as it applies to people + music + fashion. I don't really see how it is unreasonable Synthesis to label that as a subculture or a scene, anymore than it is to say something like dancehall is a genre of music or Human Rights Watch is an NGO. I am not disputing that "emo" is/was a form of slang, but that is not the focus of the article. Article titles, particularly disambiguating ones, should most accurately portray their content. It'sa bit like if LGBT was placed at LGBT (initialism) rather than something like LGBT (sexuality and gender) (not that either are necessary) --ZayZayEM 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I guess I could live with that. Sounds good! --J-stan TalkContribs 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A reliable source could be found to demonstrate that dancehall is a genre of music. A reliable source could be found to show that the HRW is an NGO. No such source can be found to substantiate the claim that this is a subculture. I don't see how your analogies hold up, and I'm not sure I understand this article. "Emo" is a slang term. Its use was and continues to be far more prevalent within particular groups (eg young people), and its use is varied and nonstandard. That's slang by definition. If that's not "slang to [you]," I can't imagine what definition of slang you're using. This article is about what that slang term describes, not about the term itself (although content about the evolution of the term would also be appropriate within this article). --Cheeser1 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several semi-reliable sources have been found referencing emo as a subculture. They are just as, or more reliable the present sources. I think it has been established well (including an abstract from  the American Sociological Association) that RS do exist referring emo as a subculture. However my main contention is clarity/accuracy of the title. Which do you feel is more accurate considering the content at LGBT: LGBT (sexuality and gender) (proposing a direct link to an unconfirmed social construct) or LGBT (initialism) (a clear and simple fact) --ZayZayEM 05:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no such thing as "semi-reliable." Where did you ever get the idea there was? Unpublished musings of sociology graduate students are not accepted sources on Wikipedia. They are not accepted in their field of study and have not been peer reviewed. Furthermore, few of them establish that emo is a subculture, only making use of the term "subculture" once or twice in passing. And as I pointed out previously, the abstract of an unpublished paper from a talk at a conference is not a reliable source (a point which was accepted as quite clear by the editor who originally posted that reference). LGBT culture and sexual identity are studied to a great extent in sociology. Setting up invalid and absurd analogies do not help your argument. The title is accurate because parenthetical words for the purposes of disambiguation are ONLY there for disambiguation. The are NOT there to reflect the contents of the article - the title is no place for exposition. They are there to distinguish one term from another. Emo is a music term and a slang term. This is why the articles are titled the way they are. I don't see how it could be any clearer. --Cheeser1 07:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LGBT is undeniably an initialism. But it really serves no descriptive purpose to disambiguate it as that. Emo, while being slang terminology, is not best primarily defined as such. The analogy stands whether you fail to recognise it or not. --ZayZayEM 16:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the point! It is not supposed to be a DESCRIPTIVE term, it's for DISAMBIGUATION. Since LGBT is always an initialism, LGBT (initialism) could never disambiguate anything! However, if I invented a laser guidance bivalve technology (LGBT) and it was on Wikipeidia, then there would be a need to disambiguate. Then they would say LGBT (sexuality) and LGBT (technology), since one is a sexuality term and one is a technology term. Here we have a slang term and a music term. Hence we disambiguate them as such. We can't say LGBT (initilialism) or emo (word) because those don't disambiguate. What we have now does. What we have now is accurate and sourced. What we have now conforms to disambiguation naming conventions. So what's wrong with what we have now??? If you looked, you'd find that naming conventions are not supposed to be descriptive. Hence Prism (geometry), not Prism (shape). You're just not getting it. Disambiguation naming conventions are not to provide exposition or description of the subject. They are supposed to tell us what context a particular term is used in. One is a music term, the other is a slang term. That's really all there is to it. --Cheeser1 19:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay scrap my example. Using your example. From what I can tell here, we have an article named Prism (shape). It's blunt with no real meaning. "Emo" is more than just a slang word. A "prism" isn't just a shape. I would support just about anything other than (slang) in this article's title. --ZayZayEM 04:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have an article named Prism (shape). Why do you say that we do? Am I missing something? "Emo" doesn't have to be "just" a slang word, but it is a slang term (in the context of this article). It is a music term in the context of the other article. The disambiguation we have now is exactly how we do disambiguations everywhere else. Frankly, there is no need to change it; it's certainly not bad enough that one could reasonably support "just about anything [else]." --Cheeser1 05:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am saying that emo (slang) is the equivalent to prism (shape) in your analogy. It's accurate, undisputably; but it is also blunt and doesn't provide a meaningful connection to article content. --ZayZayEM 08:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Your analogy is putting the wrong two things together, if that's what you mean. "Slang" is a kind of terminology. "Geometry" is a kind of terminology. "Shape" is not a kind of terminology. "Subculture" or "scene" is not a kind of terminology. The point of parenthetical disambiguation words is to tell us what kind of term we are dealing with, not to "provide a meaningful connection to the article content." Please note, however, that "slang" is in the first sentence of this article. --Cheeser1 19:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Music is a form of terminology. See Music terminology. Slang is also a form of terminology. See slang. You continue to press for things like emo (subculture) and emo (mood). Subculture is totally OR, we've been through this and there was neither consensus nor sources for that move. "Mood"?? Is that a joke? This is absurd. The word in parentheses always indicates what kind of term it is. Not some random category (ie subculutures, moods, genres, etc) it falls into. Hence prism (geometry), not prism (shape). Emo (music), not emo (genre). You continue to suggest ludicrous things like "mood" and "youth culture" while completely ignoring the fact that what we already have conforms to naming conventions. If you aren't going to cite any sources or naming conventions or policies, I'm not going to continue repeating it to you: there is no reason to change it, or if there is, you haven't presented one. Until you do, it's going to stay as it is. The "identifyier" is NOT supposed to be precise or unique. That's NOT the point. A parenthetical word in the title for disambiguation is for disambiguation, not exposition or explanation of the article's topic. It tells us what kind of term this is. Nothing more. This is how articles are named. That's all there is to it. --Cheeser1 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Your POV is not what governs naming conventions. The word in parentheses always indicates what kind of term it is. Not some random category (ie subculutures, moods, genres, etc) it falls into. Hence prism (geometry), not prism (shape). Emo (music), not emo (genre). Your suggestions do not conform to naming conventions and often introduce original research into the article. They are completely inappropriate. I have nothing more to say on this. --Cheeser1 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But your POV does? I'd really like to move beyond pot-kettle battles here, but I really don't see how we are progressing in any sort of direction. --ZayZayEM 17:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Music terminology is a form of terminology that relates to music. Geometry is loosely terminology (or a study field) that relates to shapes. Just because English has a specific word for one, and not the other really doesn't make your argument. Slang is a linguistics term, this is not a linguistic based article. I really find the identifier ambigious and misleading, and its not just me. The only argument against the changes has been based on WP:OR. Please work with us here and make an alternative suggestion that does not violate this rule, or demonstrate how (slang) is not ambigious (as music term is also a form of slang) and/or not misleading as to content. --ZayZayEM 17:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I've pointed you to the policies and guidelines governing disambiguation naming. That's not my POV, that's consensus. Sorry. --Cheeser1 07:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Slang is a type of terminology. Geometry is a type of terminology. "Scene" is not. "Subculture" is not. I don't see how this could be any clearer if I wiped it down with Windex. I'm not going to repeat this. If you continue to deny the fact that "slang" is a kind of terminology, don't expect me to repeat to you the fact that it is. --Cheeser1 07:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scene 

message: I'd also be happy with just a whole move to emo, creation of emo (disambiguation) and moving the music article to emotional hardcore. I think it is fair to say most users searching for "emo" will be looking for this article's content. --ZayZayEM 03:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be a bit awkward, since "emo" is just as much a music term as any other definition. Unless you contend that this article represents a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other - I don't believe this is the case, nor do I think that's what you're contending. In light of this, a disambiguation page is supposed to sit at emo. We really shouldn't be sticking this article at emo because doing so is pretty much the opposite of how disambig naming conventions are supposed to work. --Cheeser1 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has a section devoted to the music, so I do not feel anyone will get lost by such a system (I'd suggest a disambig notice to both the music article in particular, and the dab page be in such a page). The music term is a shortened form of emotional hardcore (hence why that redirects to music not dab), so I don't see why its a problem to move that there (avoid parentheses). And yes, I am suggesting that this is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other. I feel that the use of emo in this context is far more universal than any other listed at emo (disambiguation) --ZayZayEM 05:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely disagree with your assumption that this is the "primary" meaning, and we should not make such an assumption and defer to the state that it's in now, one of disambiguation. My point was not about people getting lost - that is not what is in question. My point was about conventions that we follow here on Wikipedia. If you can somehow definitively establish that this is the primary definition of the term, feel free, but I don't think that's possible. Until you do, there is obviously a valid contention that it is not the primary meaning, and we should defer to the standard disambiguation scheme. --Cheeser1 07:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Cheeser, I don't think we should move around the article and disambig pages unless we have clear evidence that this is the most popular article in the bunch. --The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this proposed move was way too controversial, Please ignore it. And these guys are right, it probably isn't appropriate. --ZayZayEM 16:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More complex suggestion 

message: emo (neologism) also springs to mind. --ZayZayEM 04:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just point everyone here. --Cheeser1 04:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or here might be a little more appropriate. If we move it to "Emo (neologism)", we're setting the page up for an almost certain deletion. --J-stan TalkContribs 14:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flogging a dead horse