Talk:Emo (slang)

; Archives
	Archive 1;

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emo (slang) redirect.
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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

A new approach?

I think it's been clearly established that emo is one of the most ambiguous labels we've come up with in the world. Our current attempts to get a good definition of it aren't going real well. I suggest we take what we have done in the article, and merge relevant information into other articles (such as editing the Goth article to include any relevant emo information). I believe this label is currently beyond the scope of an encyclopedia in its current state, and we should wait unil our culture can create a more unifying idea of what emo truly us. Thoughts? Nodnarb232001 19:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about what happens to the article at the moment (when I get the chance, I'll go through it and post my thoughts afterwards). What I really want to talk about is the talk page. Before I archived it, it was almost 80 kilobytes long and the only reason it was that big is because people keep posting all of this useless crap that doesn't do anything for the article or Wikipedia itself. If it weren't for that, the talk page would probably be half as long and we wouldn't have to archived it (although when editing the page, it would have said something about how long it is and tell you to archive it). So unless you have something to say that could benefit the article, like what Nodnarb232001 wrote, please don't post anything at all. // Sasuke-kun27 20:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a "user", I was after info to help understand what my teenage son was on about. Currently the article does not quite match what I've been hearing here (in New Zealand). Could that be because, as a youth culture label, the term 'emo' is constantly changing or evolving? I'm not suggesting the current article is wrong, just not complete or up to date, or there are regional differences. I've also been told that the evolution of Emo has some connection to MySpace (As a means of sharing the look?). Any thoughts of these ideas? --Alisterb 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because our world culture has yet to specifically define the term doesn't mean it is invalid and should be merged. For example, the United States population is having a major conflict just defining the "war in Iraq". The term is definitely legitimate slang for a cultural subgroup (at least in my part of the United States). It may be used differently in different areas but in my location I could easily define "emo". It may not be uniformly used across the world but certainly in certain regions it has a clearer definition. In any case, I don't think the term should be removed/merged. 67.21.19.23 16:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article sucks. No, emo has nothing to do with goth. Part of the problem is you're trying define "emo" the word, not the "emo" scene/subculture/whatever. Cedars 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^Exactly, emo has nothing at all to do with goth, gothic subculture, music or anything. - Deathrocker 00:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responce to first comment

Dont Merge in with Goth, Goth is NOT emo

71.98.16.172 00:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How so? The similarities between Goth and Emo are numerous and uncanny. Nodnarb232001 09:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol I Agree. Goths and Emos are VERY different. It seems like everyone is Emo these days.

Emo's are a rip-off goth's. All they want is attention.

Two separate sections?

Maybe the page should be split or re-written as two pages: Emo(slang) and Emo(sterotype)
I'd be willing to do it
(with some help of course) any thoughts? Kirbyrocks 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Page needs to be deleted, emos do not exist according to themselves, they just want to go die so why should they have a page? it makes no sense.Papageorgio 15:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, though there will probably still be people posting comments about one on the other's talk page. To Papageogio: you're right that the frequent comments about emos not existing are absurd. It seems to operate on a logic similar to 'There is no way to define "big" precisely; therefore, big things don't exist and there is no point describing them." But I think the second part cannot be entirely true; for the emos who post on this page don't seem dead. If there are any dead emos who contribute to this article, leave a message on my talk page. Ernest Hemingway expressed a fondness for self-inflicted shotgun wounds, yet he has a page of his own. Rintrah 17:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC) While I am still on this talk page, I want to make another comment: can people posting on this page stop treating it like MySpace and msn? This is about an encyclopedia article, not a place for random speculations and dimly thought out opinions. Rintrah 17:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emo song.

Should it be mentioned? Most people know what I mean you can find it anywhere, but ill post a link later. That song (if not true) is still better than the article.