Talk:New pop

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the New pop article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Music/Music genres task force

New pop is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre articles

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 23 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from New Pop to New pop. The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move 30 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Uncontroversial Move, despite being contested, this is unopposed for 2 weeks and a relisting. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Music (style) → New Pop – The article used to state that "New Music" and "New Pop" were synonymous. After checking the sources, I found that it was a confabulation, and that they are only "roughly equivalent". New Music does not appear to be a style. It is an umbrella term created for artists within the sectors of New Pop, New Romantic, new wave, and post-punk. Even if the terms were synonymous, "New Pop" would be a more logical, natural disambiguation. – Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Philg88 ^♦talk 11:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nomination seems reasonable, natural disambiguation is preferred. Jenks24 (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Pop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810054301/http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2011/110831.php to http://www.cbsc.ca/english/decisions/2011/110831.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pop → New pop – Lowercase per MOS:MUSICCAPS and MOS:CAPS. "New pop" is not consistently capitalized in reliable secondary sources, eg this Pitchfork source used in the article. Popcornfud (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It's a style of music and not a proper noun. Therefore, not capitalized on Wikipedia. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:GENRECAPS. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, SchreiberBike and BarrelProof. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all. Dicklyon (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.