Talk:Wonky pop

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

speedy keep, 25 October 2015, see discussion.
no consensus, 30 January 2009 (UTC), see discussion.

Wonky 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.

Merge proposal

In February 2009, it was proposed that this page should be merged with Wonky (music). There was no support for the merger. Please see the discussion. Millstream3 (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership

The BBC has reported that the term was both coined and is owned by the manager of Mika

How can anyone "own" the name of a music genre (or any other genre for that matter)? What would be the point? Where would you register such a name, and would artists/music journalists have to pay you royalties to use it? How would you defend any such claim of ownership? Nuttyskin (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By this person you mean - Iain Watt (Machine Management - http://www.discogs.com/search?type=all&q=Iain+Watt http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/908567695 .Wonky Pop Limited (company) has now been dissolved it seems.The Managing Director of Wonky Pop Limited was Alex Hardee http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/913006162 , also of Coda booking agency http://www.codaagency.com/coda/default.aspx .Iain Watt is (was?) also the manager of Mika, Alphabeat & Goldfrapp. " The Wonky Pop Tour is the collective name for three artists: Alphabeat, Frankmusik and Leon Jean Marie, who in 2008 toured venues around England under this name " http://livemusic.fm/band/the-wonky-pop-tour. Still hear this term being used by the music press etc., whatever you think about this seemingly, commercially created grouping of artist's / genre? (in a similar way Nu Rave was) it has seemed to have had a significant impact for it still be mentioned by them - therefore relevent.There are artist's out there that still try to achieve a 'wonky pop' sound, even though there 'may'? have been a reaction against it? It's the opinion's of reliable source's that count though.Not individual opinion's on whether certain artist's should be included or not.

A Whole Article Based on Someone's Opinion?!

This is a pop trivia nugget, not anything worth noting. And it's someone giving an opinion. I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased. The whole article is a farce. It's basically trivializing each one of these artists because some of them are quite different than the mainstream. Shakesomeaction (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. Please see the previous deletion proposal. Millstream3 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, how many made up sub-genres can exist? Like the ridiculous hipster-hop? At this point, I don't even think they constitute as real genres, just stupid and unnecessary labels. Just because a pop artist makes pop music that just sounds slightly different from the norm doesn't mean it deserves its own genre! 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made up by music top end industry insider's who have link's to Major label's.The article doesn't actually mention it being a genre by the way, just a loose grouping of musical act's - think there is enough significance for a Wikipedia article about it.It's an important article for people who are interested in the working's of the commercial end of music & the inter-action between media concern's.Wonky pop construct happened / still influencial - it cannot be swept under the carpet / airbrushed out of existance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caps in name

Is there a reason that both words are capitalised in the title of this article? "Wonkey pop" would be normal under WP:LOWERCASE.--SabreBD (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks out of style with the rest of Wikipedia and I don't think there is a reason, but when the article was first made it was full of spelling mistakes, so whoever made it would be the one responsible. FireWolf Flux (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait a few days and see if any reason is given. Otherwise I think it needs to be moved to Wonky pop.--SabreBD (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't move it because there is already a redirect there, hense the next section.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not much in the way of a consensus - I therefore checked external sites, looks likes the BBC and others always use a big 'P'. Page not moved. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonky Pop → Wonky pop — Not usual to capitalise words in title that are not proper nouns, as per WP:LOWERCASE. SabreBD (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if the phrase started as a proper noun. Has it been fully genericized yet? Powers ^T 13:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If its not we should probably delete the page. I will check the available sources.--SabreBD (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't see why; it can still be notable. =) Powers ^T 20:40, 26 July 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of artists

As always happens, the list of acts has grown like wildfire. Most of these acts have no references or mention of the genre on their article pages. I am going to pare this list down to those with reliable sources, so if editors feel unsourced bands should remain please supply a reliable source.--SabreBD (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list of articles needs sourcing for every artist describing them explicitly as "wonky pop"; that specific term must be used unambiguously to describe each artist. I'm going to go through the list and delete anything not appropriately sourced. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they are sourced, than it is redundant to call them unsourced. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC) Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proper nouns

Genres are not proper nouns per consensus across, um, every other music article on the project. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--SabreBD (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really??

Surely this is just some very vague movement that happened in 2009 and not moved since?? Not sure why a page in needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.176.164 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tegan and Sara

Looking at what wonky pop is, this now applies to Tegan and Sara as their last album "Hearthrob" and current album "Love You to Death" have wonky pop elements. But I think it might be difficult to source that. Thoughts? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they Canadian, but they do fit into the synthpop as that is what they becme with the two aformentioned albums and even some of their previous work. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For both, use of the term on their wikipedia page is not enough, as Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. They both need independent reliable sources.--SabreBD (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I said again. Tell me where I said anything about Wikipedia? You essentially added nothing to the discuss. If I knew you were going to say that, I would have not asked for another opinion. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Scouse & Scallydelica

Can somebody write up an article about the 'Cosmic Scouse' and 'Scallydelica' music scenes?^[1]^[2]^[3] Madchester has got a large article linked to Psychedelic music and Alternative rock on Wikipedia...but you only get Cosmic Scouse mentioned in random articles such as The Bandwagon Club, even though 20 years ago it cropped up quite a bit in the music press. On the other hand random sub-genres like 'Hipster hop' and 'Wonky pop', which may have only been dreamt up/noted by a couple of random journalists (or, in the case of the latter, been a bit of a failure if the idea was to create a lasting scene that was much more than a couple of hit albums by MIKA) are deemed worthy of inclusion.

P.S. though I do remember certain journalists/blogs trying to make 'Wonky pop' a thing

References

[1] ttps://cargocollective.com/IddywilliamsGD/Cosmic-Scousers-A-Mind-Map-of-Liverpool-s-Psychedelic-connections

[2] ttps://www.getintothis.co.uk/2017/09/howie-payne-talks-things-stands-cosmic-scouse-spotify/

[3] ttps://issuu.com/iddy32/docs/final_format

[1]

[2]

[3]