Talk:Rites of Spring

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox[edit]

I was trying to get a good infobox going here for this article, but I messed up and am not familiar with the code for an infobox yet, if anyone could edit it to acceptable measure, I'd be grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krackodog (talk • contribs) 01:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Influence" section.[edit]

I guess there just has to be one or else the part on Tom Delonge has to go, it's not like the guy is bringing them from obscurity or something. We need some sources (arguing whether or not they and their stage antics were important for "emotional hardcore" and in what time span) and then GO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.69.41 (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the demo[edit]

Mike Fellows Is Dead, 6 songs, '84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.62.169 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Fun (moved from Rites of Spring redirect page)[edit]

As near as I can understand it, there is a dispute about how to refer to Rites of Spring (band). Clearly we can't expect people to type that in. If they type in Rites of Spring then they should expect to get something useful about the band. But we also have to deal with all the people who will mistakenly type "Rites of Spring" when they mean to omit the S. Putting a note at the top of The Rite of Spring is possible, but has lead to dispute, which I can sort-of understand because of the enormous disparity of notability between the two.

I humbly submit that the best thing is to make this a disambiguation page. Is everybody happy? Say yes --William M. Connolley (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I've also created The Rites of Spring as a redirect here. This degree of ambiguity suggests diambiguation is the right way to go. --Orpheus (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stravinsky's Rite of Spring is by far the most common term related for this (cf google search if you require additional verification). Also, I note we have a dabhat at the top of the RoS article page for those who are looking for the band. I would suggest that the variants be turned back to redirects to the Stravinsky. Alternatively the band-specific dabhat at RoS should be removed to this page. But the former is the better solution since most people will be looking for the Stravinsky page. Eusebeus (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me thank William M. Connolley for taking the time to work out a compromise on this issue. Also, thank you to Orpheus for making some clarifying edits and for voicing your thoughts.
I do agree that there is a high degree of ambiguity and that more people will be looking for the Stravinsky song rather than the punk band. To argue otherwise would be disingenuous; while Rites of Spring founded the emotional hardcore genre, Stravinsky founded 20th-century music. Therefore, I agree to the suggested solution. I believe that this list of redirects represents our compromise:
I am, however, concerned about comments made by User:Cumulus Clouds. I did note to him that he [1] made some comments that I took as a threat of deletion of the page ("Second of all, I mean that nobody is going to use Wikipedia to look for an antiquated punk band for which there are few reliable sources. You are the only one maintaining that page and you need to stop undoing the redirect or I will nominate the band's page for deletion. I also suspect you are a member of the band or have some role in its promotion so you may also be subject to a COI check."-Cumulus Clouds). I am willing to forgive and forget as long as I have peace of mind that Cumulus Clouds will 1) not make further threats of retaliatory deletion of the band's page and 2) will not make any more disruptive page moves that broke 50+ links to Rites of Spring (band). I know there is no way to control what another editor does, and I don't expect to keep him away from editing these pages anymore, that wouldn't be right. I guess the best way is for many more people to add these pages to their Watchlists and we can prevent this problem from occurring in the future. --Emotional Wiki Dude (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dabhat at the top of RoS shouldn't be there. It was added by anon [2] on the 11th; I've removed it --William M. Connolley (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually both articles have significant page views. Rights of Spring has 7000-10000 p/m [3] and The Rite of Spring is more erratic with anywhere from 8000-30000 p/m [4] It should be noted that the article titles are different, they may sound similar but as far as wikipedia is concerned they might as well have nothing in common and as there is no evidence that either is or has ever been known as the other, a disambiguation page should not be created. However there is the possibility of mistakes so the links should stay and are sufficient. The pages now comply with guidelines at WP:D. I cannot see any confusion arising. --neon white talk 22:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't be that difficult, people. disambiguation pages are only necessary if there are three or more topics with the same or similar names. In this case we have only two: The Rite of Spring (the ballet) and Rites of Spring (the band). Their names are similar, but not identical, ergo we do not need disambiguations in the titles. However, we do want readers to be sure they have arrived at the correct article, so we use hatnotes at the top of each article directing readers to the other article they might possibly be looking for. Simple.
In addition, to help improve this article and dispel the "antiquated punk band for which there are few reliable sources" poppycock, I recommend using Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo as a source. It is a book written by Andy Greenwald, senior contributing writer at Spin, about the history of emo. It devotes almost an entire chapter to Rites of Spring and discusses in detail how they were at the genesis of "emotional hardcore". It is an excellent source for this and related articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you found 1 source. So that means Rites of Spring (band) won't be speedy deleted anytime soon, but to block a disambiguation between two terms which are clearly similar and to argue that the far less notable (and now obsolete) punk band should occupy the slot at Rites of Spring is frankly completely ridiculous. The fact that these two names are similar and to acknowledge the concerns from a (very) few editors, we can make that page a disambiguation and not a redirect. Otherwise The Rite of Spring should occupy the redirect with a hatnote to the band because there will be far, far fewer people looking for the band over the ballet. --Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Neon White: That's a pretty outrageous claim. "Rites of Spring" and "The Rite of Spring" are incredibly similar to each other. "Rites of Spring" is probably more likely to be typed in by people looking for the ballet (like myself, for instance) who didn't know the definite article is a part of the name. Rites of Spring was obviously named after the ballet (since it came, oh i don't know, seventy years later), so there should either be a hatnote at the top of that article with a redirect to it at Rites of Spring or a disambiguation page. The latter being the easiest and most efficient way to resolve this dispute. --Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it ridiculous? The title of the ballet is not "Rites of Spring", it is "The Rite of Spring". A reader who has typed "Rites of Spring" into the search box looking for the ballet has used an incorrect title and arrived at the band page. The hatnote dab at the top of the article tells them this and directs them to the correct article. That's how disambiguation works. It's inappropriate to make assumptions about how many readers may be looking for the band over the ballet. It appears rather clearly that your attitude in all this is that you feel the ballet is far more "important" of a topic than the band, and would like to avoid anyone who might be looking for the ballet to accidentally arrive at the band page, since you feel that the band is "less notable", "obsolete", and "antiquated", and have threatened to nominate the article for deletion if you don't get your way. This is not something to edit-war over, and it does no good to keep pushing your POV on the issue. The band is notable, and I have read several books which discuss their significance to modern rock music. The example I gave above was simply the first one I thought of; there are plenty of others. Both of these are worthy topics to Wikipedia, and both have the potential to become featured articles, so your opinion about the worth of the band is irrelevant in relation to a disambiguation discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am in support of every word IllaZilla just said. --Zazaban (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make any sense[edit]

Does it make any sense that Rites of Spring, mainly a hardcore band part of the hardcore scene, while it was alive,should be labeled POST-hardcore??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.150.244 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should note that the very first sentence of the "Band history" section has a reference to a reliable source that classifies the band as post-hardcore. I'm actually holding that book in my hands right now, and this is an accurate descriptor as Rites of Spring were part of the "Revolution Summer", an deliberate attempt by members of the DC hardcore scene to break away from hardcore and start something new (hence "post-hardcore"). Fortunately, Wikipedia holds verifiability through reliable sources in much higher esteem than the editors' own opinions. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, makes sense, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.227.212 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The hardcore movement started around the 70s and the post-harcore subgenre came about during the 80s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.30.55 (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The late '70s were the initial punk rock phase. Hardcore came about in the early '80s. Numerous reliable sources back this up, but you can easily get a sense of it just by looking at when the key bands were active and when the significant albums came out (90% of them were early-'80s). Although some bands in the '80s did signify a breaking away from punk/hardcore, this is more often recognized as the roots of indie rock and alternative rock; The term "post-hardcore" didn't get bandied about until the '90s, and today is a catchall term with almost no meaning, basically indistinguishable from "alternative rock". For good reading on the subject, I recommend starting with American Hardcore: A Tribal History and Our Band Could Be Your Life. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Associated acts[edit]

Shouldn't Embrace be included? Besides the fact that one member of embrace and a three from ROS formed a band, they were both (technically) the "forerunners" of the term emocore/emo hardcore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.30.55 (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rites of Spring. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emo genre name change proposal[edit]

Since Rites Of Spring is an emo band from the 80s, wouldn't it be appropriate to change the genre from "emo" to "emotive hardcore", which is what the genre was called back in the day? - User talk:Danielcool123 15:13, 30 May 2019 (GMT)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rites_of_Spring&oldid=1209967070"