Talk:Post-hardcore

message: Emo is not Post-Hardcore. Post-Hardcore is just a genre of music that you can relate to like people do rap. Emo is just a stupid made up emotional phase that really needs to be erased from peoples memories. To call a person "Emo" you must know, That you are also Emo. How? Because you are also one that is emotional. Emo is just a shortened word for Emotional. People that listen to Post-Hardcore or any music genre in that range is not emo, but just an Expressionalist. Karli Jo 05:03, 30 August 2013
emo is more of a branch off of hardcore punk, not hardcore, which are two entirely different things. so no, imho emo did not influence post-hardcore bands enough to have an impact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.206.107 (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "Emo" just short for "emotional rock?" I remember Good Charlotte referencing themselves as such on, of all things, the Jeff Dunham Show. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Emo is short for emotional hardcore/emocore. Good Charlotte are pop punk/pop rock, not Emo. Different forms of emo include bands like Dashboard Confessional, Jimmy Eat World, Silverstein, Hawthorne Heights, etc. Post-Hardcore and Emo are two different, yet related genres. I would consider Dashboard and Jimmy emo, but not post-hardcore, due to they dont use the basic charecteristics of ph(two guitars-electric, one clean the other heavy & chunky; relativity to screamo and/or hardcore/hardcore punk). Emo was first. Then Post-hardcore. Screamo came from ph mixed with other things. Just look at the time line. Rights of spring and Embrace (two emocore/emo bands) existed before Ph. Perhaps Emo had influence on Ph, which is from hardcore and other elements. toKEn 22:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia, Big Black existed before Rites of Spring. And they've been considered post-hardcore. That being said, this is a little bit of a forum discussion. --186.82.60.241 (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Emo is not post-hardcore. While Emo could be short for Emotive/emotional Hardcore  or midwest emo, I'd say it'd be better to use it as an umbrella term for all emo related sub genres (including screamo). In my opinion, Emotive Hardcore is a subgenre of Post-Hardcore. This goes in two phases. The first phase is something that resembles slower paced melodic hardcore but sounds more emotionally expressive, sad and has some different riffing. That's where the famous rites of spring and embrace belong to along with stuff like Dag Nasty, Ignition, Grey Matter, etc. Then cam the second phase which writer of blog You Don't Need Maps calls Basement Emo. (See: https://www.reddit.com/r/Emo/comments/439tfq/emo_history_lesson_part_2_basement_emo/). Bands like Indian Summer and Navio Forge do this. While he seems to considers it a seperate genre, I've seen emotive hardcore applied to these bands as well as it fits the name. Here it really started to become its own thing. They started to sound more and more and more emotional, and had guitar riffs and chords more similar to what people typically associate with Post-Hardcore. Punk Rock/Hardcore Punk/Post-Punk related post-hardcore came earlier with stuff like NoMeansNo, and Noise Rock related post-hardcore came earlier as well. But I'd say Emotive Hardcore was when Post-Hardcore really became its own thing. It's how we got the later emotive hardcore, it's how we got post hardcore like Fugazi and Drive Like Jehu, it's how we got midwest emo (Emotive Hardcore + Indie RocK), it's how we got screamo (Midwest Emo + very abrasive emotive hardcore), etc. I'd say plenty of midwest emo is more of an offshoot of post-hardcore however. Emo kind of became its own thing at some point. Also, hardcore and hardcore punk technically ARE the same thing. Hardcore either just stands for hardcore punk, or is an umbrella term for all hardcore related genres. People tend to use hardcore for beat down hardcore and metalcore acts. But beatdown hardcore is just a slower type of hardcore punk with slow thrash metal influences, and metalcore is just a fusion genre of Beatdown hardcore and extreme metal. Yes, these types of hardcore are different things, but they are very closely related and still types of hardcore punk. It only really becomes murky because the word hardcore became used mostly for metalcore and melodic metalcore acts. And Melodic Metalcore is more based in Melodic Death Metal than Hardcore Punk, which causes it to sound more like hardcore metal music than punk. Stayskeptic (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emo is Post-Hardcore? 

message: I saw this article here, and saw that it wasn't very specific about the STYLE of music. It is much different from early Post-Hardcore. I attempted to do this myself, but I do not know whether I need to reference the SOUND of these bands...like, do I really need a source that backs up that these new p-h bands are more melodic and commercial? Thanks for the help~New poster (DeepPurple) 05:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you luck on finding some good reliable sources. Mainstream media describes 2000s post-hardcore bands as either emo or screamo. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: This might not classify as a reliable source. This is just a short description written on an online media player, and not a published source. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Rhapsody is considered a store much like amazon.com or iTunes, which are not considered published sources. Their descriptions are also typically copied and pasted from other sources around the net. If you google a specific passage from the rhapsody description in quotes you might be able to find it. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Sounds like original research. You will need to find a source that directly supports your claims. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describing the 2000's Post-Hardcore 

message: Sooo....we're REALLY going to call bands like Thrice, Thursday, Underoath, and freaking GLASSJAW post-hardcore? I don't think so...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.184.165.20 (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Unless someone starts adding sources, the 2000s section ought to be deleted. WP:NOR. Aryder779 (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced 2000s section

message: After listening to alot of p-core lately,
comparing bands and thinking...
lately alot of people have been calling bands like Alesana, Saosin, and Silverstein emo and screamo (which is a load of bull), and the less ignorant people have been proving this wrong and dismissing these bands as post-hardcore, i'm starting to realize that these bands aren't really that either,
some of them are or have melodic metalcore in them, but I don't know what genre they are,
if anybody knows,
post it here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.133.193 (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the material on Last.fm is mostly user generated, it's not "reliable". TheLetterM (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention anyone who knows... 

message: Anybody want to elaborate on the recent increase in use of the synthesizer and other "Keys" within the genre of Post-Hardcore. I mean to me it's seems as if the New wave of Post-Hardcore is already experiencing Another type of new "wave". Bands That in my opinion seem to be making this wave grow rapidly in popularity would have to be Attack Attack!, Motionless In White, and House vs. Hurricane. Even bands such as A skylit Drive and Scary kids Scaring Kids Have constant use of an electronic instrument although, not making the sound as much of a spectacle as the previous bands listed. 
P.S. Not exactly concerned with logging in so just -Bliker Blah  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.240.88 (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So far it looks really nice! Hope you find something. If I stumble across anything, I'll let you know.--¿3family6 contribs 01:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I always appreciate your help. Keep up the good work, man.--♪ ChrisBkoolio  ... (Talk) 02:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Hardcore: Electronicore/Synthcore 

message: It is mentioned in the article but only mentions two bands. There are many more well known post-hardcore groups from canada. Protest The Hero is often called Post-Hardcore, Billy Talent is Post Hardcore, Moneen has been called post-hardcore, why aren't these bands in there? There are more too but I can't remember them right now. Can these be sourced and included? I'm terrible with refrences myself so can someone do that? KezianAvenger (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Post-Hardcore 

message: Enormous sections like these often breed plenty of edit wars, so it's better that it's not here. Furthermore, it's supposed to be an "artists" section but only lists bands from the 2000s. If you disagree, feel free to add it back but not without discussing it here. TheLetterM (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm removing the "Artists" section 

message: I've put back the two last paragraphs in the History section because they are written in a "time line/music style evolution"  point of view, describing the more recent trends in this music style. If we add a "various trends" section we should describe and specify all the trends through the history of post-hardcore and not only those two (Electronic & Experimental/Progressive).--Locopunkie (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole section needs to be rewritten and resourced as well. The entire section is original research and few of the sources directly support the claims. Some of the sources also do not qualify as reliable sources. None of the sources acknowledge a new wave or recent trend in post-hardcore. What are we even defining as a recent trend? Most of these bands formed around the same time as the previous "wave". There have also been numerous progressive post-hardcore bands in the last decade. In fact, some of the bands cited as influences on this "new wave" actually are progressive post-hardcore bands. Also, this article claims post-hardcore is an experimental off shoot of hardcore punk. So is PMtoday an experimental experimental hardcore punk band? Fezmar9 (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually, here is a pretty good one. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I'll just collect sources for this new trend here for the time being. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Trends 

message: On the post-hardcore page it says melodic hardcore is a derivative of post-hardcore. On the melodic hardcore page it says post-hardcore is a derivative of melodic hardcore. Can we get that straightened out? Also, I agree with the need for a rewrite of the "recent trends" section. Most of those bands are more progressive than the rest of today's post-hardcore, but are more similar to an older style of post-hardcore, because of the fact that they don't have as many "pop" music influences. Therefore the "progressive post-hardcore" bands are actually playing a genre that is, arguably, more true to post-hardcore than the popular post-hardcore bands being labelled screamo. I mean how can you have an experimental post-hardcore band if post-hardcore is basically "experimental hardcore". NoremacDaGangsta (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually Melodic Hardcore is an offshoot of Hardcore/Hardcore Punk mixed with Post-Hardcore. In recent years, its been gaining Pop Punk influences also. It seems this trio of genres have been playing off of each other. Take Title Fight for instance, they are Melodic Hardcore and blend elements of Post-Hardcore and Pop Punk. Also, a lot of Pop Punk bands have been involved with Melodic Hardcore (i.e., Four Year Strong, New Found Glory, A Day To Remember). This can be confusing if you don't listen to the music, of course.toKEn 22:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melodic hardcore 

message: We need to make a "Hardcore" article.  "Hardcore" should not re-direct to "Hardcore Punk".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.80.54 (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While Hardcore (Terror_(band), Death_Before_Dishonor_(Boston_band), Youth Of Today) and Hardcore Punk (Black Flag, Bad Brains, Minor Threat) are different, they are the same genre. Confusing, I know. But, it's not so confusing if you actually listen to both. Just use common sense, where did Hardcore come from??? Hardcore Punk. I get what you mean by different, trust me. But the two are the same genre. People just refer to them with different names to distinguish the sound and era. Hardcore Punk-early. Hardcore-late 80's-present. All genres change a bit. They adapt to peoples liking. Ask yourself, "Is Rock 'n' Roll considered rock?". The two are different in style and time era, but they are nonetheless the same genre. They grew with other influences, what the audiences wanted to hear, and/or by what the artist(s) wanted to play. If genres didnt change, we'd be stuck in a musical time warp. toKEn 22:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Post-hardcore" is getting way too much emphasis on Wikipedia. 

message: There were two references in the "2000s" section of this article that were tagged as unreliable. Since I was the one that added these refs, I thought I'd defend their reliability on the talk page. The first one is an interview with Ross Robinson published by Metal Insider. The interview was published by Bram Teitelman, who has also written for Noisecreep and a Google News search suggests he's written for a couple other publications since 2003 as well, including a gig with Billboard. The interview was conducted by Emily Lazar, who apparently has some experience in interviewing based on the intro statement, but I'm not really sure of anything she's done outside of the source in question. And... I also wanted to make a statement about the other ref I used, but it looks like it's a dead link that redirects to an entirely different website now for whatever reason. I'll just go dig up another one. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for catching that. I don't have the time to investigate every writer, so that is bound to happen. Thank you again for following up on that.--3family6 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most editors will (understandably) consider any publication lacking a Wiki article as an unreliable source. And I felt it was my responsibility to demonstrate notability since I was the one who added them. Thank you for simply tagging where needed instead of throwing out the information with the source! Fezmar9 (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Not sure about the first magazine, is it professional and/or have a print version? The NYT and Billboard sources are very good, so as long as he isn't used for band biographies, Guy Peters' appears to be reliable.--3family6 (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the unreliable source tag from the Guy Peters source then. And, well, the mention of Goddeau was mostly to describe his work with a professional site, upon further research I've also found that, while not having a print version, it seems to be a recognized Belgian webzine, having even it's own page on the Dutch language Wikipedia. --190.159.187.70 (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor removed Guy Peters' because of unreliability, and I will revert it if it can be shown he is an expert. I'm having trouble understanding the first post. Is Guy Peters' used in NYT and Billboard, or Mike Watt? (Webzines aren't reliable unless content written by paid staff with editorial oversight.)--3family6 (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two unreliable ref tags in "2000s" section 

message: It seems appropiate that I'd also defend the use and reliability of the Guy Peters' source. It seems that he's worked with this belgian music magazine with more than 500 articles to date, while the site also holds in their archives several interviews with a bunch of notable bands (from what I've browsed, I've seen Bloc Party, Maximo Park and Mogwai in their lists). More notably, one of his concert reviews has been linked from Mike Watt's homepage, along with interviews and reviews of him found in sources such as The New York Times and Billboard. Watt himself seems to me as a reliable third-party source. --190.159.187.70 (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about the first magazine, is it professional and/or have a print version? The NYT and Billboard sources are very good, so as long as he isn't used for band biographies, Guy Peters' appears to be reliable.--3family6 (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the unreliable source tag from the Guy Peters source then. And, well, the mention of Goddeau was mostly to describe his work with a professional site, upon further research I've also found that, while not having a print version, it seems to be a recognized Belgian webzine, having even it's own page on the Dutch language Wikipedia. --190.159.187.70 (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: An editor removed Guy Peters' because of unreliability, and I will revert it if it can be shown he is an expert. I'm having trouble understanding the first post. Is Guy Peters' used in NYT and Billboard, or Mike Watt? (Webzines aren't reliable unless content written by paid staff with editorial oversight.)--3family6 (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar unreliable ref tag in the 1980s "Origins" sub-section 

message: Would it be possible to merge the "notable fusions" section? it seems that it has to do entirely with the 2000s, and well, if there's one seeming characteristic of, even earlier post-hardcore groups, is incorporating new influences to their hardcore/post-hardcore sound (ie: Nation of Ulysses and jazz, Refused and electronic music, Fugazi and dub, etc.) So I don't see why should we give some sort of priority to these apparently (and largely unsourced -possibly original research?-, as the "not in citation given" and "unreliable source" tags seem to indicate) notable fusions --190.159.187.70 (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, I agree with you, and when merged, if a lot of the unsourced material is removed, all the better. Also, there is no mention of Nintendocore, which is definitely a notable fusion. The Nintendocore article should have the sources needed.--3family6 (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: This article is too reliant on reviews for its sourcing. In fact, few or no reviews at all should be sourced as they are more pertinent to articles on specific albums than to a broad overview of the genre, not to mention reviews are essentially opinion pieces as opposed to proper historical reporting. Additionally the page is awfully bogged down by minutiae due to citing so many reviews for overly specific details. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the review actually discusses the history of the stylistic trends it is being used to support, it's fine. However, a lot of the reviews cited on here do not discuss the actual history. Thanks for double checking, I've been trying to do the same with all the edits by the IP editor on here (who overall is doing a really good job), but I'm short on time.--3family6 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this might be true. I also don't like how the last paragraph in the Washington D.C. section became. Though in a way I think that the characteristics of some peculiarly influential or notorious albums (13 Songs, Rites of Spring's debut, Shape of Punk to Come, VA compilations like State of the Union) should be outlined, but putting them in historical and not purely critical perspective. I'm moving some of these album-specific statements to the respective album or artist pages considering how some of them may need expansion (and sources). As for the WP:SYNTH template, any specific comments about that? --190.159.187.70 (talk) 00:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overreliance on reviews 

message: The trouble with this is that, well, bands like The VSS and Six Finger Satellite were doing some sort of thing like that 10 years before, and just as I've pointed out, this could be considered as part of bands incorporating different influences themselves. And i don't think it should stand as a section of its own, unless historically for the last past years or so there has been a sort of scene that seems to share that common quality (references only point out to those particular cases), like the examples of D.C. and San Diego. Perhaps saying that the genre is influential for the nintendocore style seems important for it's own sub-section, but even so I don't think there's enough material for that to happen. I'm removing the header, but if anyone opposes, please discuss it here --190.159.187.70 (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-added electronic fusion header 

message: There's not much out there drawing a connection between post-hardcore specifically and Nintendocore. It seems to be a genre that mixes 8-bit sounds with really any style at all. Of all the bands listed at :Category:Nintendocore musical groups, none of them mention post-hardcore in their respective Wiki articles. And of the sources linked here, only the allmusic bio for Horse the Band suggests a direct link between post-hardcore and nintendocore. However, Horse the Band are more commonly accepted as a metalcore band anyways. So, the connection between the Nintendocore and post-hardcore is weak. The connection between the only band that is sometimes referred to as post-hardcore and Nintendocore is weak. I do not see a reason to include any mention of Nintendocore in this article. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) The allmusic ref is very, very, very clear in saying that Nintendocore is a post-hardcore subgenre. 2) What does it matter if Horse the Band is also metalcore? I can provide plenty of refs saying they are also post-hardcore. (Be aware that some of the refs you provided might not pass WP:RS, and at least two don't actually call the band metalcore.) 3) Why can't the genre be a host of styles? If you read the article on Nintendocore, its says its a bunch of styles.--3family6 (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All of my sources were collected through GoogleNews, and I suppose the third one really doesn't mention it. My bad. Although I can't seem to find it right now, there exists a Wiki Essay about how, in some instances, Wikipedia can be it's own source. If information sits on Wikipedia long enough, third-party publications will eventually report on it, and whether it's true or not, those news articles become references on Wikipedia. The Nintendocore article sat as a sad little stub-class article for many years. It was deleted in 2005, so I cannot tell how long it existed before then, but it was later recreated in 2006. (Interestingly enough, it existed for a while in 2007 without mentioning a hardcore influence at all, and featured two reliable sources, neither of which mention either post-hardcore or Horse the Band). So while you'll be able to find a few sources that draw a connection between post-hardcore and nintendocore, what I'm not seeing are any artists that actually played this specific hybrid after Horse the Band. Your last point seems to support my argument here: if nintedocore is an umbrella term for artists who incorporate nintendo sounds into any other genre, then how does it make logical sense to say post-hardcore had an influence on the genre? Horse the Band might have been the "first group" in this movement, but unless their specific hybrid was actually carried out by additional artists after them, then post-hardcore just did not have an influence–despite what any source will tell you. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nintendocore 

message: Hi everyone. I'm aware that the talk page for the article Post-hardcore is designed to host discussion about that article specifically, but there's something else troubling me. The article Screamo has recently been vandalized heavily. Individuals are removing referenced information, often entire sections. It seems that many resist certain definitions of the term. Anyways, I wish that a few more qualified Wikipedians would watch that page in order to defend it from this sort of activity. If I posted this statement on the talk page for Screamo, well, very few people watch the page so it wouldn't make much of an impact. I don't use Wikipedia as often as I used to, so I don't have time to revert ever vandal's edit. It takes MANY people to keep a page orderly. Thank you for listenning (/reading, actually). --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 03:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is likely because pages like List of screamo bands have become a dumping ground for any music that has screaming in it, because people can't be bothered to learn what they're talking about before editing articles, and their use of references to similarly oblivious music publications prevents it from being fixed. EznorbYar (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance needed! 

message: I think senses fail should be talked about on here because they're like the best post hardore band out there. oh yeah and hawthorne heights too  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomedayCameSuddenly (talk • contribs) 01:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  senses fail 

message: The following text keeps being added:
"While post-hardcore is usually confused with metalcore and screamo, they are two completely different genres."
Now, for one, isn't the fact that we dedicate a separate article and post-hardcore isn't a redirect to either of those genres kind of telling that this is a separate genre from those (in spite of perhaps having some connection)? In any case, I wouldn't mind this so much if it was sourced like it's the case of this section in Screamo, which presents a verifiable POV related to the (possibly wrong and vague) usage of the term, but it seems that the statement keeps being added with no sources and just based on the thought that "because x isn't y (even if it's often confused for it), it must definitely be x", kind of incurring in WP:SYNTH. The genre infobox also marks the distinction between post-hardcore and the genres it breeded/influenced/it's related to, so it seems that it's rather pointless, especially for an article intro, unless it was gonna signal something else later in the article.
Unno, seems as a rather silly point to argue about, but what do you guys think? --190.157.154.245 (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of possible OR text 

message: I've been giving thought to starting up a new article to cover bands affiliated with "The Wave" (e.g. Touche Amore, La Dispute, Pianos Become the Teeth, Make Do And Mend) but it seems maybe it could just be added as a new section in the post-hardcore article.  I'm admittedly not actually an expert on how all these bands are affiliated or if there really is any formal affiliation between them, but it seems like a new trend in post-hardcore that has grown in popularity over the past few years.  Anyone have any thoughts one way or the other on this?  tdogg241TC 20:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually been having the exact same thoughts recently. I've come across a couple articles in the last year that were somewhat notable and might be good for writing a small section here. But then just last week, I purchased a digital subscription to Rock Sound's back catalog to expand an article in my sandbox. I also found a couple articles through that that would be good for writing something about The Wave, but I'm not sure if this information would be enough to warrant a stand-alone article? Or should it be merged with another article, and if so, which one? My hesitance to start a section on the Post-hardcore article would be that less and less sources are referring to The Wave as an offshoot of post-hardcore specifically, but rather just hardcore in general. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem that the wave has achieved that much notability in its existance, it's most a 3-4 year old concept and probably while it's not significant can just be incorporated into the 2000's section of post-hardcore's history. I have been working in my sandbox aswell thinking about incorporating the wave into the history. The musical style section of each respective band pages has sources to start the writing of a section in post-hardcore. There could be a time when the wave does call for it's own section or even its own article but for now it seems okay to just add it to the 2000's because although the bands featured are getting more success in the 2010's the idea was put out in interviews and such in 2008. Jonjonjohny (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wave bands have much more in common with traditional hardcore than they do with the modern iteration of post-hardcore. The Wave definitely seems to be entirely its own animal, and I'd be strongly in favour of it having its own article. EznorbYar (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wave 

message: I have notice this has not been edited for the start of the new decade yet. I don't see the point in adding a outdated template since this isn't that significant of a gap, maybe if it goes two years without additions. Just to outline what has happened this year: Four prominant bands Alexisonfire, The Bled, Thrice and Thursday have all broke up/ marked their hiatus. La Dispute, Touche Amore The Blackout, Funeral For a Friend and We Are The Ocean (to name a few) have all released albums. Glassjaw returned with the release of both a compilation EP and a new Extended Play, while Circle Takes the Square after many years released a brand new extended play with a second studio album following. letlive. re-released Fake History in 2011 and it received critical success. All five bands of "the wave" (there inclusion was mentioned in the "the wave" discussion above) are achieving more commercial and international success. Jonjonjohny (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:RECENT, articles are to be written from a historical perspective. On writing about recent events, the documentation recommends to: "Just wait and see. Remember, there is no deadline. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball." It's far too early in this decade to really know which bands are and are not notable. There would be no use adding information that we believe to be notable today, only for the information to be substantially less than notable within a few years. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats true, perhaps I am being too hasty but to be honest i just thought it was worth mentioning for reference, in a way alot has happened this year for this scene/genre. Jonjonjohny (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this difficulty stems from the genre's very definition in terms of what it followed, rather than what it is. Some people consider it little more than a watered-down, apologetic form of hardcore. Others maintain it's a courageous effort to nudge music back in the direction of rationality, after its having been used for such a good chunk of time as a medium for expressing undiluted rage. As with all blisteringly loud amplified music, though, there's the ever-present irony of it being performed by people rebelling against established social values, while generally older, more sedate, traditional people labour in the background providing the electrical power that makes it possible. Just saying. – AndyFielding (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated article 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Graig-Wedren.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Should we add screaming vocals to instruments? As most (if not all) modern post-hardcore bands have screaming. Some of these bands include, The Amity Affliction, Silverstein, Alexisonfire, The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus, We Are the Ocean, etc... The list goes on. — ıʇɐʞǝɐdʌɐиƭɐqǝoɟʎouɹqoɐʇ [talk] 22:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding 'screaming' contributes little to the development of the article. 'Vocals' is already listed as a instrument on the article and screaming is a vocal style. And to say 'modern' bands now scream is not necessarily true, Refused or At The Drive-in use screaming; maybe not in the way we know from bands like alexisonfire but it is still a screaming style. Jonjonjohny (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern post-hardcore 

message: The page doesnt mention Falling in Reverse, Escape the Fate, Pierce the Veil, Blessthefall or Sleeping With Sirens. As all are modern Post-hardcore bands and seem to be really "in" right now and do have massive popularity I think they should at least be mention on the page. 69.29.215.17 (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentions 

message: While I've not been a part of it, Kid299, 50.247.163.181 and Binksternet have taken part in an edit war as to whether punk rock should be included as an influence. While I have not gone through every source,  the specific source that all parties are pointing to, does not cite punk rock as being an influence, instead saying that it is a sub-genre of hardcore punk. Because of this, I'm starting this discussion to explain why I am on Kid2999's side, if Binksternet can not provide a source saying this then I will revert his last edit, however if he can, I will not. Issan Sumisu (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This source says that "Younger bands flowered into post-hardcore after cutting their teeth in high school punk bands." This source says post-hardcore goes beyond hardcore's "rigid constraints... incorporating more creative outlets for punk rock energy." This source says that "The violence and nihilism that had become identified with punk rock" led Rites of Spring to redefine themselves as hardcore punk. The book The Bloomsbury Handbook of Religion and Popular Music says on page 244 that post-hardcore and metalcore are subgenres of punk. The All Music Guide says about alternative pop-rock that "during the '80s, alternative included everything from jangle pop, post-hardcore punk..." The same book says about Hüsker Dü's Candy Apple Grey album that "punks can mature without losing their edge", and that most of the album is "relatively staid post-hardcore punk". There's more than that but I have to run. Binksternet (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, none of those seem to be saying that punk rock as a genre is influential on post-hardcore, just that it is a style of the umbrella term of punk, which it obviously is because it is derived from hardcore punk. Those sources just don't seem to support the inclusion of punk rock as an influence, they're just saying that they're inherently influenced in the sense that hardcore itself is a punk genre. We don't have heavy metal down as an influence on every sub-genre of death metal like technical death metal or deathgrind  Issan Sumisu (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Binksternet provided plenty of sources that say post-hardcore is influenced by punk rock. Also post-hardcore is listened as a subgenre on the punk rock article. Punk rock should be added. Bowling is life (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the sources support that it is influenced by punk, they just support that it is a style of punk, which it is because hardcore punk is a style of punk. You just need to provide a source that actually says that punk rock influenced post-hardcore. Issan Sumisu (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the sources Binksternet provided says post-hardcore goes beyond hardcore's "rigid constraints... incorporating more creative outlets for punk rock energy." In other words, post-hardcore bands incorporate punk rock energy. Bowling is life (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that one does say it, sorry I must have missed that. Issan Sumisu (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should we add punk rock then? Bowling is life (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still a little iffy on it, but there's a source, so yeah sure Issan Sumisu (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the recent edit war 

message: The question is whether bands like MCR should really be in this article or if they are not rather "Emo". Surely, there is a lot of overlap between the two genres, but there is clear evidence that MCR is more Emo than Post-Harcore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:My_Chemical_Romance
In any case, I doubt that MCR should be in the top paragraph as an example for post-hardcore bands. Putting "The Used" there is even more absurd of course. Marc.1337 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "My Chemical Romanc " or "The Emo vs Post-Hardcore Debate" 

message: The source cited does not refer to blackgaze as a derivative of post-hardcore, and the genre itself is not heavily influenced enough by post-hardcore to be called a derivative form of it. Blackgaze is, as its name implies, a direct blend of both black metal and shoegaze. The Guardian article linked doesn't mention post-hardcore as anything other than a comparison to blackgaze's melodic rhythms, among other genres of rock. The article also only mentions a small handful of bands without delving into the history of blackgaze - it doesn't mention the subgenre's original source Alcest or its founder Neige at all - so it should not be considered a credible source of information linking the two musical genres. 70.79.59.95 (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Blackgaze from derivative forms 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Postcore. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 24#Postcore until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  dannymusiceditor  oops  15:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Postcore" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]