Talk:Joy Division

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleJoy Division is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2010.
Article milestones
November 16, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
December 6, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 31, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
March 22, 2015Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joy Division. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Terry Mason link is wrong[edit]

Goes to a listing for the wrestler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:CB00:2630:40ED:D973:517A:1A38 (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your report has been really useful, but I suppose you could have fixed it personally. Anyway, thank you very much.--Mauro Lanari (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sentence in lead, hate to be pedantic, but ?[edit]

'the album and preceding single "Love Will Tear Us Apart" became the band's highest charting release.'

should that be 'releases'. ? (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, changed now Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Siouxsie quote[edit]

Here's the text before I edited it:

Paul Morley praised the band as "the missing link between Elvis Presley and [siouxsie and] the Banshees".

Here's my version:

Paul Morley praised the band as "the missing link" between Elvis Presley and Siouxsie and the Banshees.

A minor difference, but with a few improvements:

  • Siouxsie is capitalised correctly as a proper noun.
  • We can link to Siouxsie and the Banshees without piping (see WP:NOPIPE).
  • We paraphrase the quote without misrepresenting it. In fact we lose literally no information this way.
  • It removes the need to clarify the band name with brackets (see MOS:PMC).

There is no downside to my edit. I'm amazed this has been a point of disagreement. Popcornduff (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand your concern but don't see the need of making a change in the present case. Woovee (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
You've yet to explain why your version is better. Popcornduff (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
It is not a matter of which version is better than the other. It is presented that way per wp:STICKTOSOURCE. Woovee (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
As I said above, my version contains 100% the same information as yours, just with better formatting. It is a completely accurate representation of the source. Popcornduff (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Popcornduff. Apart from anything else we cannot introduce a capitalisation error to the article.--John (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The article actually says: ". . . the missing link between Elvis Presley and the Banshees." Source: Why not just use the Banshees What's wrong with that?? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

By quoting directly, we have to pipe the link and omit the full band name. Popcornduff (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
What's wrong with that? That is just what piped links are for. The reader can click the link if desired to find out exactly what Paul Morley's shorthand abbreviation is referring to. With a piped link you get an exact quote and clarification if desired. This is one of the main reasons we have piped links. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion closed
the consensus is for Popcornduff's version. Woovee (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand why Popcornduff's version is better than my version. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I think I stated the advantages pretty clearly in the bullet points above. Do you want to respond to them? Popcornduff (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Are you not understanding why a pipe link is the best choice in this situation? Pipe links are intended to allow a direct quotation without having to use clumsy square brackets. The reader can click on the link if desired to find out what the quoted author is referring to. It is best to use a literal quotation with a pipe link in such situations. As long as the linked entry is reasonably referred to in the original quote it's not a "hidden" pipe link. Doesn't that seem the most reasonable choice? I don't get why not. Morley did in fact put "the Banshees" in the original text, not "Siouxsie and The Banshees", and it is also clear that he intended this as shorthand for the band "Siouxsie and The Banshees". I don't see why this pipe link is controversial. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
"The reader can click on the link if desired to find out what the quoted author is referring to." That would be an easter egg link (see WP:EASTER): Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links that require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on. Popcornduff (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
That is DEFINITELY NOT an easter egg link. An easter egg link is a link where the link has no clear relationship to the text. E.G. if you had the phrase "post-punk" and it linked to the Siouxsie and The Banshees page, THAT would be an easter egg link. Linking "the Banshees" to the Siouxsie and The Banshees page is NOT an easter egg link, because it simply clarifies the context of which Banshees were meant. See the difference? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree it's not as extreme a case as the "post-punk" example, but it's still an easter egg link if the reader has to depend on context to guess where an article leads. What is the advantage when we can just make it completely unambiguous? Popcornduff (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
It's up to the reader to decide whether they want to find out which Banshees are meant. Since the link concerns Banshees it's NOT an easter egg link. An easter egg link is one where the meaning is opaque. That's why it's called an easter egg link. Usually it's an easter egg link when the phrase doesn't contain any words from the article title. But in this case the linked article is indeed about Banshees. I don't see the problem. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
What is the advantage when we can just make it completely unambiguous? Popcornduff (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
You are misquoting for no advantage. Just link it and the reader can click for clarification. --

Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a misquote. Popcornduff (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
The quote IS: ". . . the missing link between Elvis Presley and the Banshees." UNLESS you put ". . . the missing link between Elvis Presley and the Banshees." then it IS a MISQUOTE. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
It's paraphrasing. See WP:PARAPHRASE. Popcornduff (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Why paraphrase that? A pipe link serves the same function much better. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I've been invited to comment on this, since I earlier (innocently) corrected a typo and removed the pipe. I think either way works, but I would be inclined to use the full literal phrasing and the pipe, as a more accurate representation. Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Eh, I think the current version is okay with the quotation marks moved around. Maybe the pipe link was trying to get too clever. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

the word 'commit' used in conjunction with suicide[edit]

The word 'commit' connotes a criminal or immoral act; suicide is neither. I do not think this article, and others, should not be denigrating people that have died by suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoluddism (talkcontribs) 19:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


What the hell is proto-emo anyway?? Somebody tried to put that in the infobox. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


This was discussed in the Talk Archives. The consensus was that JOY DIVISION IS NOT GOTHIC ROCK. Please refer to the Talk Archives before starting a new discussion. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Genres of Joy Division?[edit]

Since a certain particular human told me to take it to the talk page, I am indeed doing so. So why is the band only listed as “post-punk” on it’s page without “gothic rock” being included?

One, the gothic rock Wikipedia page literally name checks Joy Division as a pioneer of the genre. Two, that same page also listed credible sources for this claim as well. Seriously, Joy Division were one of the first bands to have the title of “goth” or “gothic” attached to their music, even by their own manager Tony Wilson.

Just cause they never identified with the subculture doesn’t mean they didn’t make the music. Distorted and jangly guitars, high-pitched bass, icy synths, heavy reverberated drums, and Ian’s baritone are all common staples of gothic rock; Which is again, listed on the gothic rock Wikipedia page. Even music theory wise in terms of picked guitar in a minor key on a descending scale, which is another common staple of goth music, Joy Division fits the bill. USMCLP (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Isn't Bauhaus the real beginning of gothic rock as a genre? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What does Bauhaus have to do with any of the points I just made about Joy Division being a goth band? Bela Lugosi’s Dead and Unknown Pleasures came out like a month between each other. So if you’re trying to say Bauhaus was first or something, well no, both bands pioneered the genre around the same time. Especially considering JD performed songs from their first record way back in 1978, and The Birthday Party (another goth band) already existed.

The most ironic thing about Bauhaus is that just like Joy Division, they made goth music yet never identified with the goth subculture. Can also say the same about The Cure and Siouxsie and the Banshees, two other bands that made up the “big four” of the beginning goth bands who were seen as the main pioneers of the genre.

Regardless, Joy Division definitely fits the bill and it’d be quite silly to deny that, considering the amount of evidence I just mentioned. USMCLP (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

A gothic rock band should be one that identifies with the goth subculture at some point. Also a consensus requires more than just you. If you change the main page to say "gothic rock" someone will probably revert it again. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

No, that’s not how music genres work. A music genre is based on MUSIC, not anything else. Also, the consensus is more than just me, as I literally mentioned the sources of JD being mentioned as a goth or gothic band. Did you read anything that I just said?

And your point also doesn’t make sense because those three other bands besides Joy Division have gothic rock listed as one of their genres on their pages. But did they ever identify with the goth subculture? Nope, not really. If someone reverts it again, I’ll revert it like you reverted my edit and tell them to head to the talk page lmao. I apologize if I come across as condescending, but you’re just making me repeat myself and making no legitimate argument of your own. USMCLP (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What I said is exactly how it works here. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This is rather wp:UNDUE. That said, several recent wp:reliable sources have tagged Joy Division gothic rock but is it historically relevant to pigeonhole the band with this genre? I don't think so because the majority of music historians doesn't consider Joy Division as such. Gothic rock should be used only for the second wave of bands (Sisters of Mercy, Fields of the Nephelim) that played dark music. Sisters of Mercy used guitar solos and were up for rock'n'roll whereas post-punk bands of the first wave rejected all those rock'n'roll clichés. Now, I think that the "gothic" adjective should also appear at some point in the "musical style" section: there are a few quotes from contemporary reviews available from Melody Maker or Sounds. I ping Ceoil as they helped pass this article GA. Woovee (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

We should be representing the sources in balance with their various descriptions. Most sources classify the band as post-punk, very strongly so. The goth connection is one of influencing future bands, not so much Joy Division being called a goth band themselves. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Has anyone else looked at the current sources describing the band as Gothic rock? First one is a cover of NME that does not explicitly call the band a GR band in the context of a critical review (this cover describes Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds as GR too), the 2nd is a Youtube video with a passing remark by someone merely using the word "Gothic" ("slightly sinister and gothic") and the 3rd source is from a book (that most are unable to verify) that uses the term GR but makes no mention of Joy Division as such in the actual text. I'm inclined to question the reliability of these sources in relation to sourcing this genre. That is not to say that reliable sources describing the band as such do not exist. Robvanvee 05:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Fair points, I’ll update the sources. USMCLP (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)