Talk:New-school hip hop

old comments

This isnt a genre of music, and doesn't deserve an encyclopedic entry. Theres old school, golden age, and modern era. This is just a quick term people use on the street to say its not old school, or its not old school or golden age.--Urthogie 16:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In truth "golden age" isn't much more than that, either. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is horribly written... and clean up all the "your mom" stuff please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.171.89 (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongly titled

There is an actual "new school" in hip hop dating back to 1983 , so this article is misinforming people. I intend to re-write it completely. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Old article is here. It should really be called Popular hip hop 1999–2007 or some such. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

The long paragraph, "Bambaataa's first two records" has only one reference, and it is a Wikilink. The book needs page numbers included as references.--andreasegde (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, andreasegdge. What do you mean when you say the reference is a wikilink? The reference is the book. I've wikilinked the author's name and the publishing imprint just because i like to do that. The book is indeed the reference for the entire paragraph. Can you clarify? 86.44.18.185 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because reference [1] is only a Wikilink to a two stub articles about the author, and his publisher. I realise that the ISBN number is in the article, but for this article to pass you have to go further than that. This is because anyone could reference a book ISBN, and then write anything they wanted. This is not suggesting that you did that, of course, but page numbers are needed in Notes/References. If you have the book, it is easy to do. If you don't have the book, then how do you know exactly what was written? It helps the reviewer of the article in the end. :)--andreasegde (talk) 12:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, reference [1] is the book. I don't understand what the problem is with wikilinking the author and the imprint. If you are saying that the book is not enough, and pagenumbers are needed, that's fine, but stop saying the reference is a wikilink, when it's not, it's a book! :D

I'm not sure about your picture moves. The Run-DMC and Flash pictures are not cosmetic, they were to illustrate the gulf in how these artists presented themselves. This is why they appeared together, beside the first mention of this difference in presentation. Also I don't see a great improvement in having Malcolm X appear alongside the paragraph on Eric B. and Rakim, having cut my paragraph on BDP into two, one long paragraph with no refs, and one stubby and illogical one with two? Before it was at least logically connected to the BDP paragraph. Perhaps the article is more readable now rather than having blocks of text, I don't know. I suppose I will defer to your judgement. 86.44.18.185 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will see what I mean about the references when it is reviewed - wait until then... I moved the photos to where the people were first mentioned. You obviously don't need any help, so I'll leave you to it. Bye.--andreasegde (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol no i need lots of help! And I am going to restructure the references with page numbers. Thanks for your attention, please don't hesitate if you can improve the article further. 86.44.18.185 (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits

The new school hip hop article properly shows that Dr. Dre cannot strictly be considered old school hip hop, and already makes the point that "new school" has become synonymous with "contemporary" for many fans. Therefore the section that has been added headed Modern New-School Artists is superfluous and confusing. If editors want to talk about contemporary hip hop, there is an old version of this article linked in the section Wrongly Titled, which they can make into a new article if they should so wish. We can then link to it from here. Good? Not good? 86.44.23.66 (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

These editors delete every addition I make to any article. I don't know what problem they have with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MC Prank (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that :( It's just that this article is about a specific continuity of popular new york hip hop that in effect dies out in the mid-nineties as independent NY labels stop dealing in hip hop, gangsta rap leads to g-funk and NY responds with hardcore etc. etc. It's not really about current hip hop. Hip hop from the late nineties to today probably deserves its own article. 86.44.26.69 (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]