Talk:List of synth-pop artists

message: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trizicus (talk • contribs) 04:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Howard Jones should definitely be on this list.  Also Human League et al. 2600:4040:7D6F:8E00:A1B1:28C8:60CB:9AF0 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

message: *Proof Zeromancer is synthpop: http://www.last.fm/music/Zeromancer/+tags
*Proof God Module is synthpop: http://www.last.fm/music/God+Module/+tags
*Proof Neuroticfish is synthpop: http://www.last.fm/music/Neuroticfish/+tags
*Proof Velvet Acid Christ is synthpop: http://www.last.fm/music/Velvet+Acid+Christ/+tags
*Proof Die Krupps is synthpop: http://www.last.fm/music/Die+Krupps/+tags
*Proof Wumpscut is synthpop: http://www.last.fm/music/%3Awumpscut%3A/+tags
More: All bands listed here should be added to this list if not already.
:last.fm's top synthpop artist list is generated by users of the site as are its artist biography pages, thus last.fm can not be considered a reliable source. Read this to read Wikipedia's guidelines for what is considered reliable sourcing. Basically reliable sources are academic in nature, journalists for mainstream media (NY Times, BBC, Fox News etc), music journalists. "Reliable" sources have rigorous fact checking.  All social media, personal websites, publicity websites, blogs (with the exception of blogs by reliable sources) are considered unreliable sources by Wikipedia not necessarily because they are wrong but there is no way to know who is the author or what fact checking has taken place. If you considered this you can see why an individual editors personal opinion of the absolute truth, or just plain common sense, or what everybody just knows to be true will never be considered a reliable source. For an act to be included in a Wikipedia list, at a minimum either in this article or in the acts Wikipedia article the act must be called specifically "synthpop" by a reliable source. As I keep on mentioning every act that uses synthesizers are not synthpop. The Who and Emerson Lake and Palmer were pioneers in the use of synths but are not considered synthpop.  Although industrial might have some synthpop influences it is considered a different genre of music then synthpop by reliable sources. 
:Bottom line unless you find reliable sources saying an act is synthpop here or in their article the act may be deleted from the list. Although it might take some time to get back to you because I am busy feel free to ask any questions. Edkollin (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop removing: God Module, Neuroticfish, Velvet Acid Christ, Die Krupps, Wumpscut, and Zeromancer from the list 

message: I added the b-52's. I think they would qualify as Synthpop, Just listen to Rock Lobster! - Josh  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.47.199 (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Philip Oakey was the lead singer of The Human League, who are already mentioned in the article.  He released "Together in Electric Dreams" without the rest of the band, with producer Giorgio Moroder.  Yes, The Cure released a few songs that closely resemble synthpop (the most obvious of which is 1983's "The Walk"), but I wouldn't include them on a list of synthpop artists.  As for others, feel free to add them to the list, as long as they have a page on Wikipedia. John5008 | talk to me 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is synthpop 

message: Why is Apoptygma Berzerk still kept in this list, when it was agreed in the main article's talk page that this band generally cannot be considered synthpop?--Skraelinger 13:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: Add Machine in Motion (see some of their videos on youtube); also add BlueOctober UK (listen to some samples on amazon.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.75.181 (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Additions 

message: I need to apologize to Ed Kollin for flying off the handle and letting my frustrations about his edits and these lists in general get to me last night. While theoretically lists should go by the same rules as article in practice as even Ed Kollin has noted over in the New Wave list discussions the reality is different. Most editors seem to be inclusive or putting it another way another more relaxed regarding enforcing standards in lists then in regular articles. If a band is synthpop influenced not just primarily synthpop editors want to add them in. Same is true if a act is locally popular only. And editors cut some slack about finding sources for lesser known acts or acts that come from non English speaking articles.  Invariably this gets opposed by a few editors with good intentions that want to strictly enforce the sourcing rules leading to edit wars. Many of these these editors while respecting sourcing rules have a blind spot regarding the de facto consensus guidelines. If your standards are being disregarded day after day this should be a signal the consensuses is strongly against your good intentioned viewpoints on these matters and that you should respect the majority view. If this happens I believe the number of edit wars would decline and in the long run most will be happy. Of course this requires people on my side and me specifically should stop acting like assholes also. 69.114.116.215 (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apology Accepted: Where just going to have to disagree about inclusiveness. I find that once standards are loosened or if I give other editors a little bit of leeway this invariably gets taken advantage of. So if I seen overly or unfairly prickly about this that is why. Also every article has different editors and sometimes different standards. We can use other articles as guidelines but we are not bound to follow the way they do things. This article has developed a consensus for more strict interpretation of the rules then other lists have for whatever reason. The other articles have resulted in endless edit wars. I would like to avoid that here. I am going to reenter group that was deleted back because I have found reliable citing that they are synthpop and notable. With google etc I don't understand why everybody seems to find doing this onerous (not including groups big in non English speaking countries). Edkollin (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology 

message: I am leaving them on the list for now because there are numerous sources calling them "technopop". I am not familiar with the Japanese sources and do not know if the sources are reliable. Edkollin (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perfume 

message: Since the Synthpop and Electropop articles have been merged shouldn't we allow acts reliably sourced as electropop? Edkollin (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no objections I won't delete or put warnings for any group with a reliable electropop reference here or in their article. Edkollin (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, I don't think so. I know this might sound WP:OR-ish, but despite the merge, sometimes these two terms are still used distinctly nowadays, as in not every electropop can be automatically classified as synthpop (i.e.: Kesha). SnapSnap 20:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

text: What you need is a reliable source stating explicitly that the two terms are intervchangeable, or anything sourced as "electropop" should be left off here until a source saying "synthpop" is found. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a source..--SabreBD (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electropop 

message: An editor used it to source the Chromatics as synthpop. I put an unreliable warning on it because the publisher is called the "The Vinyl Factory" and to me it sounded like some sort of record company so I thought it might a magazine created to publicize its artists. And to me when a publication calls itself  "FACT" it raises suspicions for me so I flagged it. Since I am from the states and the magazine is from the UK I will defer to UK editors. Edkollin (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact Magazine reliable? 

message: Mike Posner is not Synthpop, for crying out loud. Ok, so someone found one oddball article where he was stupidly labelled as such, therefore we have to include him in this list? Ridiculous, and an insult to the other artists in this list. 98.220.135.184 (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Posner is NOT Synthpop 

message: *Baltimora is mainly an italo disco band, and "Italo disco" is not a synonym of "synthpop", even if both of these two genres make use of synthesizers.
** Put back, found reference saying they were a New Wave Synthpop act that had elements of Dance/Disco 
*Daft Punk is mainly a house/techno duo, not a synthpop duo. This is not an electropop duo either. Synthwave.94 (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Baltimora and Daft Punk 

message: Unfortunately Allmusic list of top artists are not considered reliable on Wikipedia, as they are not generated by individual writers but by hits on various pages, so one of the major sources for this list needs replacing. If anyone can help with this it would be much appreciated.--SabreBD (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, many thanks for that.--SabreBD (talk) 11:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Allmusic list

message: I have fixed the usage of the three column presentation which doesn't work on narrow screens.  please discuss here if there is a problem with using variable numbers of columns based on the browser window width. Frietjes (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multicolumns 

message: The Cure have a few songs in the genre of synthpop. According to these criteria, you can add Elton John, Queen and David Bowie, because they also have songs that can be attributed to the synth-pop. 176.214.42.255 (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cure is not synthpop 

message: Nearly all "underground" (not radio-played) bands are missing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VNV_Nation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assemblage_23
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linea_Aspera_(band)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_One
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De/Vision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(band)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptygma_Berzerk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boytronic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icon_of_Coil
...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.113.70 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Mainstream List