Talk:Electroclash

message: I would like to elect that this entire article be reconsidered for deletion as it is   polluted with grammatical and spelling errors together with a general theme of self promotion.  Futhermore, is violates the MUSTARD standards in many areas.Lynnarmstrong 03:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your views of the current state of the article, however, I feel that deletion is not a proper solution. Electroclash is a legitimate genre of electronica, and it has grown well beyond it's beginnings with Larry Tee, something that this article does not adequately express. As an alternative to deletion, I propose a "soft reset", something like what  Jimbo Wales did to the Sveasoft page here. -- Ryanfantastic 01:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconsider for deletion 

message: This article is a clear violation of WP:VERIFY and possibly WP:NPOV. As such, I have added a cleanup request and a  unreferenced template. 
Ryanfantastic 09:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Request 

message: The Representative Artists section is too large and has way too many red links. Therefore I removed the artists listed below. Some of these artists are clearly not representative of the Electroclash genre, and others have been removed due to a lack of a corresponding article for the artist/ensemble. If anyone objects, please make a comment here when you add the artist back. 
* A1 People
* Aier Sauft
* Ambra Red
* A.R.E. Weapons
* BoygirL 
* Cazwell
* Collider (band)
* Crazy Girl
* Death From Above 1979
* De-Regulator
* Disasteradio
* Di$h and ShiQuana
* Droyds
* Dr. Wundt & Perfection
* Ebon
* Electrocute
* Generation Aldi
* Goatlords
* Houston Bernard
* Hong Kong Counterfeit
* Larry and the interns
* Linda Lamb
* Lindstrøm
* Maria Daniela y su Sonido Lasser
* Michael Human
* Morplay
* My Robot Friend
* Nitsch & Glienser
* Phiiliip
* Schwefelgelb 
* SovietElectro 
* Soylent Gringo
* Spektral
* Stalker7
* Technova
* Tobell Von Cartier
* The Act Of Being
* The Most
* The Laws
* The Silures
* W.I.T.
* ZoinX
More removals to come. If there is an interest in keeping such a large list of artists the should be listed on a List of Electroclash bands and artists page.
- Ryanfantastic 00:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up Representative Artists 

message: The article says the first electroclash track is considered to be I-F - Space Invaders are Smoking Grass. The article says it's 1993, but that track was made in 1997. I'm correcting the article.
Does this still make it one of the first electroclash tracks?
Probably in the time sense considering electroclash was mostly started around the end of the 90s, although I personally consider it to be nu electro--Reubot 07:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, nu-electro tracks enriched with witty vocoder-driven vocals such as for example by Anthony Rother directly preceded the Cambrian explosion of Electroclash towards the end of the 90s. --Rio65trio (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  First electroclash track? 

message: This author of this article has no idea what they are talking about. The Genre of Music described is called Elektro, it was born out of electroclash but is now definitely a new genre. And lastly BANG GANG IS NOT DEAD.
14:15, 10 November 2006 220.101.83.182
No, this is electro. Unless you are thinking of electro house, which has its own article.
--Reubot 14:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Information 

message: Seeing as the list of artists was quite substantial and contained entirely blue links, I've moved it to a separate stand-alone list article at List of electroclash artists. Guidelines do suggest that embedded lists should generally be avoided. - Zeibura Talk 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's deleted? I made a new one, then saw this post.. I guess I'll just have to see how it holds up. Nnnudibranch 09:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of artists moved 

message: The first paragraph of the Themes section should not be a link, but I find it waaay too funny to even consider removing it. Clinton (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just removed that whole section, it was just a superfluous OR rant, maybe for wikinfo but not here. The link referred to above was inserted in this edit if anyone's wondering. - Zeibura (Talk) 02:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themes section 

message: I've added some content and sources in an attempt to rescue the article.  I don't have a great deal of knowledge about the genre, so I can't fill the article out very well.  Hopefully, someone else can fill in the gaps and correct any mistakes.  If necessary, I can work more on sources in the short term.  BecauseWhy? (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the proper discussion page for voting whether this article should be deleted or not? Its a joke. This article existed since 2002, its one of the oldes articles here and noone ever considered deleting it. and now someone decided, he doesn't like electroclash and puts a 'speedy delete' tag on it. Seriously... 'electroclash' gets 3 Mio Google hits. I would think thats notable enough? Sure, its just a stub but that is no reason to delete it. Splette :) How's my driving? 03:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Browsing a bit through the history of the article, I realize it has had a lot more detail in the past, until somone decided to remove the entire history section, just to add a 'speedy delete' tag because the 'subject is not significant'... Splette :) How's my driving? 03:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the way to avoid that type of thing in the future is to add some sources on the info in the history.  However, removing nearly all the content then adding a speedy tag is kinda'...  silly.  Which is why I re-added at least the lede.  I'd be happy with more information being added again, but it'll need to be sourced.  Cheers.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the prod and added more sources. This is definitely a genre with lots of reliable sources mentioning it, though maybe we need to tone down the fluff a little. --AW (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Proceedings - June 2008 

message: Considering that the electroclash music has nothing to do with the underground LGBT culture, I removed the Ball Culture's link from the page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.158.18.190 (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delection of the Ball Culture link 

message: The band Ladytron rejected the electroclash tag many times. In the early years, they were lumped on this scene by lazy journalists. Please don't include this band on the list of electroclash artists because they're NOT. They don't sound like any electroclash artists.
Ladytron described their music style as electronic pop:
Deepblue1 (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is not a list of electroclash bands. It makes clear that they were associated with the genre and that they later eschewed the label. This would be an odd omission from the article. I also note that you added pretty much the same information to the Ladytron article with this edit []. Also please note that what a band say they are is not that important: Led Zeppelin disliked being called Heavy Metal and the Sex Pistols denied they were punk, yet every significant book on those respective genres mentions them. Bands rarely like the labels they are given, but they are given and if that is in reliable sources and notable we should mention it.--SabreBD (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because few journalists said (many years ago) they're electroclash, that means they really are? Plus: their sound evolved a lot during the years. You said "Also please note that what a band say they are is not that important". But to my ears (and I'm not the only one), they don't sound like electroclash. Instead adding Ladytron at "The style was pursued by artists including...", the best idea is to write a new sentence like this: "During the early years, Ladytron were sometimes labeled as electroclash, but they rejected this tag." (like my edit on Ladytron's page). That would be OK in my opinion. If anyone else knows about this subject please join the discussion. Deepblue1 (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with current wording in the main body of the article, but I see no reason to delete Ladytron from the lead, as it says "associated with" not necessarily "part of" the genre. This is just a statement of fact. As a sidenote it is often easier to get consensus if you get agreement here first and then post changes, rather than the other way around.--SabreBD (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Added two references confirming what you already formulated: Some reviewers state that Ladytron "were not entirely electroclash", and Ladytron themselves rejected this tag repeatedly in several interviews. In my own opinion the early Ladytron (604, Light&Magic) could be associated with new wave, electropop, electronic rock or synthpop, pretty much the same as for example Vive la Fête, but most of their songs lack some typical characteristics of electroclash such as the very simple, trashy structure and vocals just based on a square-wave electro bassline repeated in two octaves. In other words, their sound is too sophisticated and serious to be electroclash. --Rio65trio (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ladytron are NOT electroclash 

message: In the last days I revised the article (early tracks and artists, labels, places, people, origins; new criticism section) based on existing and many further references. Hope it has made the article a little clearer now. --Rio65trio (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision August 2016

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Electroclash. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2002/mar/22/shopping.artsfeatures2
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2008/05/16/this_cat_is_housebroken/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.popmatters.com/music/concerts/e/electroclash-2002.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303205056/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/goldfrapp/supernature.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/goldfrapp/supernature.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Electroclash. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070318002327/http://music.yahoo.com/ar-300621-bio--Larry-Tee to http://music.yahoo.com/ar-300621-bio--Larry-Tee
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2002/mar/22/shopping.artsfeatures2?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2008/05/16/this_cat_is_housebroken/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.popmatters.com/music/concerts/e/electroclash-2002.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified