Jump to content

Talk:Trap music

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Trap music (hip hop))


Untitled

[edit]

I have just added a portion of trap music that was necessary for the public to know and wish for you all to edit as you please. We are putting together information on Notable performers to the Trap World making sure their content and art is recognized. Especially, we want to recognize these artists in our new section for their accomplishments and contributions to trap music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King JLo (talk • contribs) 05:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC) -Add this to Origin(YB): “In the 1990s, musicians such as N.W.A., UGK, Three 6 Mafia, Master P, Dr. Dre and Ice-T, among others started what has been termed gangsta rap, talking about the violent lifestyle of the disadvantaged neighbourhoods of American cities, and leaving aside the more political and poetic discourses of the earliest rap… And the fact is that while gangsta rap was a mutation of the original hip hop, trap would be a second mutation derived from gangsta, converting it into a new culture, different from that of the original hip hop, often forgetting the verses, committed ideology/poetics and rhyming, and with certainly more sinister musical tones.” Add to Characteristics(YB): “It could be affirmed that trap is the first musical style where people without a discography or money to pay for a demo could make music from their computers.”[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 17 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DaltonFielder.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Koverstreet3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Histmerge

[edit]

Um.... wtf? Now the entire history is gone. How hard is it to split an article?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uff. There are 2388 deleted revisions of Trap music (hip hop) and trying to restore the 2387 we need at once is crashing the database because it's too large an operation. Whoever deleted an article with that many revisions to make way for a move should get a nice trout. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, its back. Doing the first hundred or so manually made the rest doable in one go. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 15:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and move without consensus

[edit]

Can someone explain to me why this article was renamed and moved? Where did that consensus come from? There was a discussion for a requested rename and move, see Talk:Trap_music_(hip_hop)/Archive_1#Requested_move_6_February_2018, , the result of that discussion was overwhelmingly oppose, but the discussion was suddenly closed and the page was renamed and moved anyways. Abierma3 (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The move discussion was withdrawn by the requester. The RM could have been considered invalid in the first place because both the target page and the page to be moved had content. Since the split was done accordingly, the target page was considered the "official page", making the page to be moved a redirect. The opposition was not overwhelming because only 2 editors, including myself, opposed. To make it count, I switch my vote from oppose to support, if it means the pages will remain where they are. Moreover, there was already consensus to split and change the title in the 2014 proposal and while the editors who participated in the RM did not definitely say support or oppose, interpreting the discussion shows that these editors were in favor of going ahead with the move. — Zawl 07:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia says, "Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia... Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move." In this case, the article was retitled from "Trap Music" to "Trap Music (hip hop)" so how was the RM invalid? Are you saying the article didn't change it's title from "Trap Music" to "Trap Music (hip hop)" following the split of the EDM content from the page? Another editor as well as myself drew attention to the fact that there is an issue of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with this retitling that needed discussed, but the movers of this page disregarded the fact that there was not yet consensus, closed the RM prematurely, and retitled the page anyways. Abierma3 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Trap music was a redirect to the disambiguation page after the split, only (hip hop) and (EDM) were there before the RM, making the RM invalid because redirects cannot be subject to a requested move discussion as a page to be moved. There was little page moving involved after the RM, just a move was procedurally done to complete the histmerge. Since the RM was invalid in the first place, whatever the result was, shouldn't be applicable. The histmerge was done to preserve history of the pages. Either way, there is consensus from the 2014 proposal to have the articles titled as Trap music (hip hop) and Trap music (EDM). — Zawl 13:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's evident that everyone who opposed the move was very confused about the RFC. It was a purely technical request. However, it's also true that there was no consensus to create two new articles, only for Trap music (EDM) to be spun out from Trap music.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus in the 2014 proposal to have two articles as (hip hop) and (EDM). — Zawl 13:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely don't think the last discussion was consensus in your favor. @Zawl: Aleccat 04:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Trap rap

[edit]

Instead of making it confusing with Trap music (hip hop) and Trap music (EDM), let's just move Trap music (hip hop) to Trap rap and move Trap music (EDM) to just Trap (EDM). Thoughts? SuperLuigi22 (talk|contribs) 02:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is "trap rap" an actual term?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to "Trap Music"

[edit]

This page covers the **primary topic** associated with the term "Trap Music". The EDM genre does not have the level of notability to force this into a different page name. Just like Barricade does not need to be called "Barricade (structure)" just because there is also a Transformer with the name. Bread does not have to be called "Bread (food)" just because there is a very successful band with the same name. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and noted earlier that there was no consensus to retitle this page as "Trap music (hip hop)".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree also, see the section above "Rename and move without consensus" for my explanation why. Abierma3 (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikki Lee 1999: Don't perform undiscussed controversial actions without gaining consensus. Try WP:RFC. KingAndGod 08:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply a back-and-forth effort as there have been consensus for splitting the pages and now a few new editors want the pages moved back, and when they gain consensus, the split supporters could get a new consensus and it goes on and on. There needs to be stability. KingAndGod 08:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KingAndGod: Do you realize that renaming this article "Trap music (hip hop)" was also an "undiscussed controversial action"?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. This page should not be moved again without a listing at WP:RM and consensus. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovetopaint: There is consensus for the page to be titled "Trap music (hip hop)" at Talk:Trap_music/Archive_1#Proposing_split which was proposed by User:2Flows. Moving the page to "Trap music" is against consensus and should've been done via RFC as obviously it is controversial and there are objections. Given that the proposal was successfully carried out, resulting in the new title "Trap music (hip hop)", that should be the "default" title and any new moves should be done via RFC or RM. @Amakuru: Please undo this move as it is against consensus and has been the stable title for months. KingAndGod 11:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KingAndGod: no, the consensus in the discussion you linked was to split out the EDM variation from the original hip hop version. It didn't propose renaming the original article. The discussion from February, in the section above also confirms that the move of the article was unexpected, and there was no consensus for it. If you want to move it to Trap music (hip hop), please propose this in a requested move. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: The proposal - "...propose to split the article into Trap music (hip hop) and Trap music (EDM) (or similarly titled), and use the current page as disambiguation for the two". That's exactly how it was. The pages were split into Trap music (hip hop)[1] and (EDM)[2] until a history merge was requested which prompted the history of (hip hop) to gain the history of Trap music.[3][4] and Trap music turned into a disambiguation[5]. That was the status quo for several months until today. KingAndGod 12:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, you're right - the 2014 proposal did list that, so I've withdrawn that part in my comment above. However, it is not clear to me that the participants there were aware of the fact that the split entailed a move as well.... none of the supports specifically addressed that. And more importantly, consensus on this page, both in February and now, as well as at the February requested move on the subject, clearly show that the community did not support such a move. Therefore it's controversial and should be listed at RM.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I don't get you. A move was never supposed to happen. The timeline went about like this:
  • Consensus reached to split the articles into (EDM) and (hip hop), with the base title (Trap music) becoming a redirect
  • The split carried out, prompting the existence of 3 pages (EDM), (hip hop) & Trap music
  • Ilovetopaint disagreed with the way the split was carried out and suggested a move from Trap music to (hip hop) was necessary (probably to preserve history)[6]
  • Ilovetopaint started an RM to move Trap music to Trap music (hip hop) but withdrawn it amid unanimous opposition.[7]
  • Anthony histmerged Trap music into Trap music (hip hop) to preserve history and the base title was redirected to the disambiguation Trap (the move was necessary to facilitate the histmerge).[8]
  • Thus, there existed Trap music (as a redirect to Trap), Trap music (EDM) and Trap music (hip hop), as per consensus.
  • An error by Anthony caused the entire history of Trap music to disappear, which was discussed on this page Talk:Trap_music#Histmerge. filelakeshoe resolved it.
  • Abierma3 raised a concern about why the page was moved (from Trap music to Trap music hip hop), pointing to the withdrawn RM and was probably unaware of the original consensus.
  • As asserted by Ilovetopaint, the participants in the RM were "very confused about the RFC". They also asserted there "was no consensus to create two new articles". This, however, is untrue as there was consensus, as pointed above.
  • Today, Ilovetopaint requested to move Trap music (hip hop) to Trap music, ignoring the previous consensus and failing to mention it at Requested Technical Moves, where it was moved by you. About the community 'not supporting such a move', they were most probably unaware of the existing consensus and thought it was a regular move discussion. KingAndGod 13:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I checked the link and you're right, the proposal did include a request to rename the article with "(hip hop)". I think one more RfC should be conducted before this gets any more confusing.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KingAndGod: I just thought I'd chime in since my name was mentioned. I am not unaware of the 2014 split proposal; I was actually one of the four people that voted to support the split of the EDM content. Like Amakuru mentioned, if you actually read the discussion that occurred, a consensus was reached that EDM trap is notable and distinct enough for a separate article, but at that time no editors actually discussed retitling the article after the split (outside of the brief mention in the proposal). It would be a stretch to consider that an established consensus several years later, especially when editors have been overwhelmingly opposed to the retitle after it was performed. There should have been a WP:RM months ago before the split, but I don't see why we cannot do one now to truly see whether there is consensus or not. Abierma3 (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we could do a new RFC but the issue here is the page being moved illegitimately against existing established consensus and now the same editors want an RFC to see if the new title should be moved back to the old one. This shouldn't even be correct since the page should be at the old title and an RFC should be for moving the old to new. I'm just disappointed with the rogue move. Such a blatant failure to adhere to policy. KingAndGod 05:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Trap music (hip hop) or Trap music?

[edit]

Procedural close: RFC appears to be superseded by move request in the section below.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Trap music be renamed back to "Trap music (hip hop)"? Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • No – Trap is no longer strictly a hip hop subgenre. It's really just any kind of music with a certain hi-hat rhythm pattern. This development is why Trap (EDM) was created, because editors thought the hip hop-centered infobox was confusing and misleading. It was actually a better idea to simply remove the infoboxes and stop treating trap as if it's still a "subgenre" of anything. It's not. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. See my post on this talk page from 10 February 2018 for a more detailed explanation. Abierma3 (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. This page was moved illegitimately (requested by Ilovetopaint) from Trap music (hip hop) to Trap music. My case is presented in the section right above this. There is consensus for the page to be titled Trap music (hip hop) and changing it creates an imbalance in disambiguation as there exists Trap music (EDM). Trap music has always been a hip hop subgenre and there's no evidence that it has become general. It would be better to use the base title to create a page about the general topic or even write a few lines about it at Trap then redirect there. Currently, the content at Trap music is about the hip hop subgenre not the general topic. KingAndGod 05:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I didn't agree with the separation when it was made nor the subsequent disambiguation/seemingly opinion-based classification of trap music into either hip hop or EDM on literally thousands of articles when it was done and I still don't—however, I thought consensus had been determined as evident, but on second thought, perhaps not. My opinion can be summed up by what Ilovetopaint said above—it's basically just a rhythm pattern, all basically coming from the same thing but now being splintered off and taking on different forms in two different genres of music. I also don't believe Trap music (EDM) really warrants its own article, but that's a separate discussion. At least with trap music any existing links don't have to go through another redirect. Ss112 05:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It was OK to move the page from Trap music to Trap music (hip hop) as part of the split, per WP:BOLD, but once it became clear that there was controversy over that move, it should have been reverted and an RM started. The original RfC was four years ago, which is too long ago to be regarded as binding consensus, and even then, the issue of moving the article was not explicitly argued, beyond that very brief mention in the RfC blurb. And aside from this "process" debate, there's also a fairly clear case that the hip hop topic *is* the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the EDM - it consistently gets [several times the daily page views - so per WP:TWODABS it's correct that the hip hop article is here, with a hatnote for the EDM one.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Amakuru: That's your opinion, though. What basis do you have to unilaterally undo the result of a consensus without going through the relevant processes? Simply claiming there was controversy is not a valid reason. Some editors disagreed with the consensus because it wasn't their preferred outcome but does that negate the consensus? Your move was entirely unnecessary and should've been left to a new RFC. KingAndGod 09:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @KingAndGod: the discussion was four years ago, and the consensus following the split in February was clearly against the move of the base page. Like I said above, you are welcome to start an RM on the matter, and the community will then decide whether they want the move to go ahead or not.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 20 April 2018

[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: retain Trap music as the title of the article at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 15:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Trap music → Trap music (hip hop) – "Trap music" originally existed as an article until a consensus was reached to split it into two - Trap music (hip hop) and Trap music (EDM). There were disagreements about how the split was done as an editor asserted that the page should have been moved to the new title instead of splitting manually (via cut-and-paste) in order to preserve history. The pages eventually went through some moves and histmerges and ended up as below:

  • "Trap music" turned into a redirect to the disambiguation page Trap (without the past history)
  • "Trap music (hip hop)" became the main article with the significant history
  • "Trap music (EDM)" was split into its own article (via cut-and-paste)

An editor recently requested a move at WP:RMT to move "Trap music (hip hop)" to "Trap music", unilaterally reversing the established consensus and the article was moved. This page should be moved back to Trap music (hip hop) as it is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and there was a longstanding consensus to support its position. KingAndGod 10:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davisonio: Objectively, this just isn't true. The page view statistics show that two months after the article was split, trap music (hip hop) had more than four times the views as trap music (EDM). "Trap music" is predominately used to refer to hip hop trap by far. Abierma3 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, can you guys make this issue any more confusing? Why not just let the above RfC run its course instead of redundantly proposing a change that already has (current) consensus? Just move the article back, then we can talk about how the subject should be handled. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovetopaint: page title discussions should be held through WP:RM, as this one is, not through an RfC. The move of the page in February did not have consensus, so it was reverted and now we're discussing whether it should be moved from the long-term title. Please say whether you support or oppose the move, with reasoning.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The most recent consensus (from 2014) had 4/5 support to "split the article into Trap music (hip hop) and Trap music (EDM) (or similarly titled)".
@KingAndGod: As Amakuru and myself have tried to explain to you, this isn't consensus given that no one actually appeared aware of or discussed the name change; all of the people supporting merely voiced support for the split, with no one discussing the rename (which should have been done separately from the split proposal in an RM like we are doing now). For what it's worth, I was one of the "4/5" that you claim provide consensus for the rename, and since I don't support it then we are down to 3 out of 5 people who didn't even discuss a rename and considering that the proposal was four years ago and numerous editors have come out opposed to the rename post-split of the article, it is pretty evident that were was no consensus at all for the rename. Abierma3 (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I vote to keep "Trap music" as the article title.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a portion of trap music that was necessary for the public to know and wish for you all to edit as you please. We are putting together information on Notable performers to the Trap World making sure their content and art is recognized. Especially, we want to recognize these artists in our new section for their accomplishments and contributions to trap music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King JLo (talk • contribs) 05:00, 27 March 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wanna be a trap singer

[edit]

I don't have anyone to sponsor me but I'm in Botswana Dipesalema (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Close Cash

[edit]

Page that needs a review: WikiProject Close Cash Abking1993 (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page needs review: Close Cash

[edit]

Can find at Draft:Close Cash Abking1993 (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trapeton is a fusiongenre of Latin trap

[edit]

Latin trap didn't get to experiment with reggaeton rhythms till 2018-2019 with songs like Te Bote, mixing trap with reggaeton creating a new fusion genre. Dach12 (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute regarding word "Atlanta" in the article lede

[edit]

I dispute that use of the word "trap" to refer to a drug-dealing house is only "Atlanta slang". For example, https://local.nixle.com/alert/8617928/?sub_id=0 shows the term is also used by California law enforcement with approximately the same meaning.47.139.42.35 (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds

[edit]

Can we give examples of the characteristic sounds of trap? Particularly, say, of the hihat, kick and snares that the article says are important components of the sound. Respecting copyright, of course, so perhaps somebody familiar with the genre can just program a few sound examples. yoyo (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OJ Da Juiceman is not even mentioned

[edit]

also people call his songs trap classics to this day 178.121.0.195 (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way to look at it, the genres which gained mainstream popularity are described here on Wikipedia from big record label/superhits/pop-crossover position. Dunno how feasible that it, but it's how it seemingly goes in Wikipedia. There were many trap pioneers which go unmentioned (Juiceman among them; they had the whole 2000s to develop trap sound, of course there are tons of pioneers! and even before the 2000s, it's not like TI came with the whole sound originally out of blue lmao), but they barely ever touched Billboard charts (if ever), so, according to Wikipedia logic, they are less worthy of mentioning, than modern trap-popstars, or Cardi B, or K-POP crossovers, or Ariana Grande crossover hits or whatever else trap-sounding came out of the pop machine. That's just how the things are, so you all just need to let it go and realize this is how Wikipedia works, it's not 100% representation of outer reality. The reliable sources they use on Wikipedia are mostly record label promo/PR outlets (a.k.a. "music journalism"), these sources ain't gonna give you a detailed history lesson, their primary function is to hype the crowd for the next pop machine cookie (with some novelty sprinkled in for the curious, and from that novelty we usually need to re-construct "History" sections in these music genre articles) No one pays these "music journalists" for history lessons, but they are given their share in the pop business as advertising agents 178.121.4.171 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trap_music&oldid=1199628158"