Talk:Grime (music genre)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Grime (music))
Jump to: navigation, search

Merge Proposal[edit]

Voting for fusing Electro-grime and Rhythm & grime to Grime

Both Electro-grime and Rhythm & grime have too little content, and (arguably) won't be expanded in a long time. I vote for fusing them in Grime as sub-sections. If we ever need to split the page, it can be done at a later time (via the "main article" template, maybe). -ArkBlitz (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't really vote on Wikipedia, changes are carried out by consensus. I agree that the above articles should be merged here, given they seem unlikely to be expanded for now. They can always be moved back if they care sufficiently expanded.--SabreBD (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Electro article now redirects here. I removed the merge tags from the article because they have been there since 11/08 without any decision. If you want to merge the other one I think you go ahead and do the merge without fear of any strong objection. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and redirected rhythm and grime here too, you can pull any content worth merging from it's history. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed Sheeren[edit]

He isn't a pioneer of any genre, and most defiantly not a grime MC. anyone that adds it should be forced to have ginger children like him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.134.184 (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dubstep is rather devirative genre, not subgenre of grime[edit]

--82.139.5.13 (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Grime is an early mid 90s thing. Around the same time Jungle started showing up.[edit]

Zoele (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

no, it isn't. Kaini (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So they called it Krunk. It is highly similar. Some of it is the same. Guess what that means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoele (talkcontribs) 22:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

A poor viewpoint[edit]

The whole article reads like an american magazine article on Grime. This really needs changing, there is not even a mention of the butterz label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.3.171 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Excessive links and artists in the lede.[edit]

The lede is just too excessive. All that is necessary are a few examples of each category - pioneers, notables etc. It's not necessary to list all that any given editor either is aware or a fan of. As I stated earlier, there's something wrong when there are more wikilinks in a lede section than non-wikilinked words.

Please discuss why every single one of those links is necessary to be in the lede, and indeed needs linking at all. Show why they are notable using sources, and remember that just because an artist has a wiki article may make them notable for mention in the article - but not necessarily notable for the lede section. By all means if they can be found homes in the article itself put them in - but again - why is the lede being crammed full?

It looks bad, and seems counter-intuitive - generally pioneers are few and far between, yet the article suggests that there are many of them, which dilutes the term "pioneer", whcih is essentially an innovator. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please join a discussion here as to why the lede for this article needs to be crammed with so many artists. The point of the lede is to summarise the article, which means a brief explanation of what follows - and is not an escuxe to list so many artists, especially when it's debateable that they are notable or pioneers - certainly to the level of a mention in the lede. Notability is not defined simply as having a wiki article, but also measured by mainstream success and reliable sources reporting on them.
Please comment here before readding lists - or at the very least use edit summaries to explain your thinking. Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 February 2015[edit]

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: To be moved as requested. No consensus that it's the primary topic, but there is no opposition to the original move request. Note: the move will require admin assistance, which I will request. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)



Grime (music)Grime music – Standard title form, in line for example with the FA heavy metal music. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC) --MASHAUNIX 00:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That might indeed be an even better idea.--MASHAUNIX 10:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment - I have no opinion over a change from "Grime (music)" to "Grime music", but would be opposed to just plain "Grime", as I'm not convinced it is indeed a primary topic, and think that the disambig should be retained. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I see your point. I'm fine with either version ("grime music" or "grime" as primary topic).--MASHAUNIX 14:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

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.

D Double E Vs Newham Generals.[edit]

D Double E needs more sourcing before he can be considered a Pioneer. There's no notability elsewhere, apart from a single reference which is too esoteric to be considered reliable enough. He's had no mainstream success, doesn't have a wiki article of his own, and the Newham Generals article itself makes no mention of any pioneering work he may have done.

Please discuss and bring references before re-adding. If you find them, I'll not revert and will defend his addition, but as you can see from my editing history on this article, (WP:OWN notwithstanding,) due to the constant addition of any given editors favourite artist or crew, regardless of reliability or elegibility, sources are required - which would be the case even if the previous statement weren't true. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Who does that Chaheel Riens think he is? He doesn't own this article![edit]

I'm completely sick of that Chaheel Riens editor constantly deleting information from this article. All people are doing is adding their favourite Grime MC's into the article, either as Pioneers or notable groups, and he keeps deleting them, using the same arguments of "non-notable", or "unsourced", or "JME didn't enter Grime until 2004, so he's not a pioneer of a musical style that emerged in 2000" and others.

We should be allowed to enter our favourite artists without sourcing - and we shouldn't have to use edit summaries (or the talk page) to justify it either. Everybody in the Grime scene knows that MC Neverheardofhim is the best thing ever. If it was reliably sourced that would mean he's sold out, and is no longer a cool rapper.

Sugessted Page Reformatting[edit]

I propose moving the Musical Style section up the page before the national growth section. I think moving the section would create a more cohesive flow of information, seeing that the history section discusses a little bit about the development of the music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenj09 (talkcontribs) 23:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)