Talk:Pop-punk

WP:SYNTH in old characteristics section

Please stop restoring the horribly sourced version of the "characteristics" section. Most of the claims are not supported by the sources. It's unarguably preferable to present the sources' opinions on pop punk individually than to bundle them together and pretend that they're each describing the same concept (they're not!). ili (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, please stop doing the same for the lead. The body has several different contradicting definitions of pop-punk and it's not Wikipedia's job to take sides when each pov is equally valid.ili (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section is not NPOV

The criticism section seems to be something someone added because they personally don’t like pop punk. Articles about similar genres don’t have criticism sections, and pop punk has been popular for years (in the 2000’s as well as the last 3 or so years) so I don’t feel it’s warranted because there clearly isn’t a consensus that pop punk is bad music. Cretaceousa (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Pop punk article title

Can we remove the hyphen from “pop punk” on its article’s title? The hyphen is not used in other articles, nor in its own article. I already edited the introductory paragraph to remove all instances of the hyphen. This is just something I realized. Ded Meem (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No. I have restored the hyphen. Simply because the hyphen is not used in another article means that it is dated and is a problem that needs fixing on that respective article. There has been some arguing over how to render the title, but ILIL's reasoning at requested moves was sound (this number may have changed): Most sources (particularly books and web articles centred on the genre) typeset "pop punk" as "pop-punk". This can be seen in the "References" section, where you'll find that 17 headlines spell the term as "pop-punk", whereas only 8 say "pop punk". dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's unfortunate that the predominately accepted typeset includes a hyphen, because it's not logical at all.

"Pop" in "pop punk" is an adjective, not a prefix. For example, pop rock is not "pop-rock"; it's "pop rock" (the current predominately accepted form, that is). Equivalently, it's never "country-rock"; it's "country rock". It's never "blues-rock"; it's just "blues rock". It's never "rap-metal"; it's simply "rap metal".

Genres such as "post-X" and "proto-X" include the use of a hyphen because those are prefixes being used to alter the actual raw meaning of the noun, whereas fusion genres and sub-genres use adjectives, or adjectival nouns, to describe a particular variety of the original noun.

The above adjectival noun examples work the same exact way as actual adjectives do:

• It's not "soft-rock"; it's "soft rock".

• It's not "hardcore-punk"; it's "hardcore punk".

• It's not "progressive-metal"; it's "progressive metal".

If the presence of the hyphen is considered standard typeset today, then I guess that's the standard typeset today. It's still linguistically incorrect.

Maybe one day it will be rectified such that the accepted standard will omit the hyphen...

Jdjd021 (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

No mention of Adam and the Ants?

You would have thought early 80's band, Adam and the Ants deserve a small mention given their string of chart hits, but there's nothing? 86.22.43.187 (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

From a Google search, the only source I can find that seems to call them pop punk is [1], which says "The music, needless to say, is rock and roll, a clever pop-punk amalgam". But this doesn't seem to be pointing to the pop punk genre, just that there are elements of pop and punk, and this is only referencing one album. Adam and the Ants are generally considered a new wave band as far as I know, which early on definitely had elements of pop and punk, but that doesn't make it pop punk. You can't even really argue it's proto-pop punk, because the Ants were making music at the same time as the Descendents. Issan Sumisu (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

APT

Seems like you locked me out of editing so I’ll plead my case here. (Ridiculous I have to do this in the first place)

APT is not a pop-punk song. It has no business being in the “history of pop-punk” section. The source used to justify its presence in the article isn’t substantial in the slightest, especially when one only need listen to the song to refute that assertion that it’s a “pop-punk anthem.”

Olivia Rodrigo has a MUCH stronger claim to the genre, and yet the paragraph prior explicitly lists her music as pop-punk influenced. So it’s baffling how, immediately after, we throw all nuance out the window. It’s a stretch to even say APT is pop-punk inspired, the only punky thing about it is the fact that Bruno Mars and Rose are wearing leather jackets in the music video. The song is pure pop/K-Pop.

Can we please let reason prevail and edit out APT. Seriously you’d have to actively not listen to the genre to believe APT has any place in the history of Pop-Punk. 2607:F010:2E9:33:8D86:4859:49B6:AEE5 (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussing on the talk page is not ridiculous, it's what should be done straight away to remove content like this, instead of engaging in an edit war. I understand not thinking "APT" is a pop punk, I wouldn't say it is, but counter to your opinion I think it is definitely closer to pop punk than Olivia Rodrigo, so I see the vision: it's a guitar-driven pop song where every chord is a power chord and it undoubtedly informed by power pop. That being said, it has been called pop punk by many WP:RELIABLESOURCES: Vogue (and again), Rolling Stone, (and Rolling Stone Australia), the UK Chart Company and Forbes, it's also been compared to Avril Lavigne (it's pretty similar to "The Best Damn Thing"). The policy WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE says we should stick to what the sources directly say and the source say it's a pop punk song. It is also only one sentence, so is very non egregious. I'd oppose any more than one sentence. Issan Sumisu (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

So we’re keeping it in the article because it’s been compared to artist who themselves only have a tenuous connection to the genre and would more appropriately be described as genre adjacent? Seems like a lot of mental gymnastic to justify its presence let along confidently assert that it *is* a pop-punk song.

At the end of the day the crux of the argument are two articles that are probably citing each other and only mention it off-handedly in the first place. The History section should cover notable bands/movements that have had a tangible impact on the genre, APT has not and will not have an impact, because nobody save this page considers it to be part of the genre. It’s only included because of dogged determination to take what is a lazily written source as infallible evidence.

At the very least the formatting should be applied in the same manner as is done for artists who's music is not pop-punk but takes inspiration from the genre 2607:F010:2E9:11:44E3:DE74:C4E7:3114 (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

https://www.reddit.com/r/poppunkers/s/VoRZA2DE0L 2607:F010:2E9:11:44E3:DE74:C4E7:3114 (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)