Talk:Joy Division

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?storyCode=1031301§ioncode=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Terry Mason link is wrong 

message: 'the album and preceding single "Love Will Tear Us Apart" became the band's highest charting release.'
should that be 'releases'. ? 78.147.43.93 (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, changed now Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence in lead, hate to be pedantic, but ?  

message: Here's the text before I edited it:
Here's my version:
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You've yet to explain why your version is better. Popcornduff (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: By quoting directly, we have to pipe the link and omit the full band name. Popcornduff (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I don't understand why Popcornduff's version is better than my version. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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):  Popcornduff (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What is the advantage when we can just make it completely unambiguous? Popcornduff (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are misquoting for no advantage. Just link it and the reader can click for clarification. -- 
Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a misquote. Popcornduff (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: It's paraphrasing. See WP:PARAPHRASE. Popcornduff (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Why paraphrase that? A pipe link serves the same function much better. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Siouxsie quote

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  the word 'commit' used in conjunction with suicide 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  GOTHIC ROCK?? 

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fair points, I’ll update the sources. USMCLP (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Hey. Thanks again for backing me up on The Jam. Regarding Joy Division, I’m ok with just post-punk being listed on the main page, but if you want to put gothic rock to recognise their influence on the genre, fine. There was no recognised ‘goth’ subculture/music in 1979, though, so new wave ought also to be listed, as more reflective of how they were perceived at the time, even if they fit oddly within the genre according to some modern (mis)understandings of what new wave was. Janglyguitars (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genres of Joy Division?  

message: Although referred throughout the article as "Bernard Sumner", did he not call himself "Bernard Albrecht"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taff Hewitt (talk • contribs) 22:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in the very early days of Joy Division (ie when they were called "Warsaw"), and he has regretted it since, like others from that era who unwisely flirted with certain imagery (see also Siouxsie Sioux and Sid Vicious). In Sumner's case it was re hitler youth. Ugg, but in fairness he was around 17 years at the time, and per his biography, had grown up in an area of Manchester heavily bombed by the Germans during the war, so naturally, I suppose, he was was curious in pushing boundaries, as young people usually are, and should be (except for Nazism obv, but it seems this was all rather innocent and naive). Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bernard Sumner's "Name"