Talk:New Order (band)/Archive 1

Suggest article title change

I love the band and everything, but when typing in just "New Order" I really wouldn't expect to be brought here- given the multiple uses of the phrase, it should really go to the disambig page, and this should be renamed New Order (band) (as I'm sure it was at one point). Maybe the band has the greatest single claim now, but I still don't think New Order's worldwide popularity has quite superseded all other historical uses of such a basic phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.135.191.35 (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Still tons of NPOV problems

The "aesthetics" section is just awful and full of NPOV stuff. Either we need citations or a more objective sounding article. Examples of the problem:

"This synthesis laid down the groundwork for dance/rock groups of today. The group's album art earned them the status of icons in the alternative community, and have shown considerable longevity."

"They have heavily influenced techno,"

"This has often been the defining characteristic of the New Order sound."

The whole damn section just reads like a glowing review. Someone fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.139.204.126 (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indie?

new order as indie rock? it's well placed in new wave band list, but when you see the info... "New Order are an English indie rock band "

This is a bit more complex - they certainly started as an indie rock band with synths (arguably even "post-punk"?), and even though many of their recordings were club hits in remixed form, the albums as released retain a definite "rock" sound. Possibly "New Order are an English rock group who fuse indie rock with dance music"? Rayray 09:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think of them as indie. First, they already had a good following before the band had even formed. Second, I think their 80s albums have a definite rock sound in many places, but not indie rock. New Order is (or was in the 80s) a post-punk band that turned more and more new wave as time went on. Well, at least that's how I look at it. I would strongly endorse Rayray's statement if the word "indie" was replaced with "alternative". Folkor 19:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree but I wouldn't use the word, "alternative" because it sounds too general like "new wave" although "new wave" is more appropiate; use the term we use now, "synthpop". New Order is more in line with synthpop (at least their 80's hits are)than anything else. So I see them as a "punk-rock" band (joy division) who became a synthpop band and now has evolved to do some different styles. Check out Depeche Mode, Erasure, Pet Shop Boys, Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark and Alphaville to name a few and you'll see what I mean (Besides, to make my case, these bands are from same era and place: England and Germany). To put it in another way, The Cure did some synthpop sounding songs early on but they're not known as a synthpop band.

Don't you guys know what "indie" means? It's short for indepentdent, meaning that the band is on an independent record label - not a corporate label. Since New Order was on Factory Records (and actually had no written contract), they are an "indie" band. It's not a genre of music per se, merely a name for who distributes a band's records. Nathan Greenhalgh

Yes but most lay people understand "indie" as a genre and the connotations that goes along with it, hence the confusion. -Will

Most people are idiots. 92.0.156.89 (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC) new order is famous , and play in stadiums in my country in 87, fuck americans with this bullshit indie talk

Singles

Do we really need a page for EVERY single? The three most notable ones - Blue Monday, True Faith and TPK already have non-stub articles that I started, although I didn't write most of the BM one. Adding stubs for them all is a bit OTT. Kiand 10:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They're not so much stubs as they are short articles, as the point is to chronicle more the releases than the songs themselves. I think they're pieces of general interest (and consider that there is an article that lists songs by NO that don't have the title in the lyrics!), but then again, I'm the culprit in this case. ;) - hN

New Order singles (throughout the 80s, at least) were very interesting releases. Since almost all of them sold a ton of copies, and most featured non-album singles or at least very different versions of album tracks (with the exception of "Subculture", which was just given a mild remix). New Order's a pretty big band, and their 80s output is very influencial. I would argue strongly for the existence of individual single pages - that's how most bands' Wikipedia articles work. Well, most bands that have a big enough following to have big pages. I agree here with hN. Also - I would argue that "Bizarre Love Triangle" and "Temptation" are just as notable as "The Perfect Kiss" and "True Faith". Folkor 19:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody know why they re-recorded Confusion and Temptation for Substance 1987? I did hear the original Confusion recording on the 1989 Substance video collection, and from listening to it, would assume they re-recorded it because of Sumner's shockingly-poor vocals on it. Also, does anyone know where one might find the original recordings of these songs?

They re-recorded "Confusion" because, according to an interview of Peter Hook to a Brazilian magazine when they first toured Brazil in 1988, they didn't like Arthur Baker's production at that time. Also, Peter Hook mentioned that "Confusion" is one of the worst-selling singles of New Order's career and made clear that he prefers the band's version. On "Temptation", it is also said that the band had finished the studio sessions in doubt about which version would be official so they ended up using most of them. Funny enough, "Temptation" is said to be Bernard's song of choice. EFurtado 13:58, 2 January 2007

The original recordings of Temptation and Confusion are available on their respective vinyl singles. If, however, you mean on CD, they are on disc 1 ("Pop") of the Retro box set. ("Temptation" is also on the 1981-1982 EP, but that can be hard to find.)

Gillian

Has Gillian really left the band? I know she has to take care of her ailing son, but she does get to work with the band, if not tour with them right?

She's officially out, Phil's officially in; she's not on the new album.

Now the core members of Joy Division decided to change the name of the band if one of them were to leave the group. Did they choose to ignore this promise when Gillian left New Order?

That was an agreement between them as Joy Division they obviously didnt make the same pact or whatever as New Order live at the witch trials 12:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that she's officially out. She appeared with them in 2005 at an awards ceremony - some hall of fame awards, if I remember correctly. Can anyone remember the exact awards? She was also at the 2005 Q Awards. Her increasing public appearances (increasing by New Order standards, that is!) may suggest that she may make a return to the fold at some point in the future, no? Pure speculation though. By the way, I think her sick child is a girl, not a boy.

New Order tracks which include the title in the lyrics

What a banal piece of trivia. Is this really necessary? Edwardian 07:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)Edwardian

It was a seperate page, to offest the fact that a full New Order section on the list of songs without the title in the lyrics could have been close to a hundred entries long; someone merged it without discussing it first... Kiand 17:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It might have been an intersting bit of trivia when it was RARE for New Order to directly label a song after something in the lyrics, but not any longer. Would anyone mind if I remove it? Edwardian 21:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)Edwardian

Considering I spent an hour or two checking it, I'd kinda like it to stay in some form, but as most of Get Ready and WFTSC have the titles in the lyrics, it could get a bit unweildy... If you can see some way of mentioning it but removing the list, go ahead Kiand 21:56, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the tracks from the two latest albums should be left out of the list, and just a note saying that most of them are named after lyrics be put under it? --Zilog Jones 01:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't want anyone to feel as though he or she has wasted his or her time, but I'm still trying to understand why this list is deserving of inclusion in the article. Just because a list of something can be made, that doesn't mean it should be included. Why not a list of all New Order songs with BPM = 120? Edwardian 01:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because this is one of the more distinctive features of New Order. I suggest moving it back to its own page. --Hn 02:43, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

2nd that thought. The list distrupts the flow of the article. --Madchester 21:18, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

I think this deserves neither a full section in the article nor its own page. The trivia section is looking pretty skimpy - why not consolidate it into a short blurb there? --jiy 02:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rob Gretton

Who gives a crap about trivia? How can this article go 3.5 years before its first mention of Rob Gretton? Edwardian 07:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of trivia... the "New Order" name

The article states:The late Rob Gretton, the band's manager for over 20 years, is credited for having found the name "New Order" in an article in The Guardian entitled "The People's New Order of Kampuchea". FYI: Johnsons' 1984 book says "the article spoke of the 'New Order of Kampuchean Liberation'", Flowers' 1995 book says Gretton got it from a passage in an essay about a "new order of architecture", and Middles' 1996 book says Gretton got it from "a television documentary about Pol Pot". Edwardian 07:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Blue Monday sleeve

"Blue Monday" is the best selling 12" single of all time, though because the packaging of the first pressing was so elaborate, resembling a large 5¼" floppy disk I think it was actually based on an even older format - eight inch or possibly eight and a half. Used to use them on a Honeywell Level 6 in the early eighties. BTLizard 12:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The 1983 Blue Monday 12" is definately modelled on a 5.25" floppy disk.

I second that -- it's a 5.25" floppy, based on the location of the write-protect notch and the index hole. However, the back cover of Power, Corruption and Lies resembles an 8" floppy due to the placement of the index hole (though some 8" disks had their index hole in a different location).

Just one word

Hi, changed just one word. The article had "current personnel ...". I just thought this was way to military discourse. So I substituted 'personnel' for 'members'. Still a neutral word. Just not so harsh. Any objections then change it straight back Cheers. --203.220.120.188 14:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Given their tendency toward Nazi imagery, I think military discourse might not be altogether inappropriate. ;o)

New Order Tours

The article is lacking detailed information about tours. I know they did a Low Life tour and have the dates from a promotional postcard. Maybe someone who knows more about their touring should start a new section. - Shiftchange 12:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

They did a hell of a lot of touring. See NewOrderOnline concert list. Folkor 19:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding a qualifying statement - they did a hell of a lot of touring, prior to 1993. They haven't toured much since - few dates in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2005 basically.--Kiand 20:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Discography

Quite large, could warrent its own page - New Order discography. Any objections? --SaltyWater 13:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with leaving it? It's hardly in the way and a discography is a fairly central part of any band page, large or not Me677 14:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Most other articles with large discographies are split onto other pages so the articles aren't too large. The Beatles, Madonna (entertainer), and the rest... --SaltyWater 14:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favor - lots of bigger bands have seperated the two. Folkor 19:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

If you search on New Order, then you immediately come to this page... I think it should go to the disambiguation page first, and then people can select the appropriate link. New Order has other, equally important references, including a big chunk of modern Indonesian history, and a slice of German (Nazi) history, and it's easy to miss the link to the disambiguation page at the top of this page. Let me know what you think, and if there is general agreement I'd be grateful if I could have some help in doing it. Thanks.

Well, Sepa, that doesn't sound like too bad of an idea. However, in my experience, I've never known anything else as big as the band that also held the same name. Obviously, my experience is limited, but for me, the band is what would come first. However, disambiguation is always helpful, and if enough other people would find it helpful, then I'd say go for it. Folkor 18:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that with the general northern hemisphere and western hemisphere bias on here, as well as it going towards modernity, the band are probably receiving more inward links than the others combined. Additionally, both the Indonesian and German ones are translations into English and not the original names. I'd keep it as it is. --Kiand 18:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes We Do

In response to the person complaining about ot wanting to know EVERY New Order, every single written and performed by New Order is compeling and beautiful and needs to be told with detail.

So yes we do :D

Pmftroy 10:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

neworderonline.com vs neworder.cc

neworderonline is a fanrun website, but it is officially endorsed by the band and their record label. neworder.cc is just a little site made by the record company to promote the latest album. I'm very much in favour of neworderonline.com being classed as the "official" site in this article; both in the infobox and under external links. Afterall, which link is in the Waiting for the Sirens' Call artwork? Quite. Comments please. SaltyWater 21:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll have to abstain from this, I have neworderonline.com tshirts in my wardrobe :p --Kiand 21:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Template

There's a template doing the rounds: I've added it to the main article, the member pages and the studio album pages. Feel free to add to any other New Order related pages. Do so by typing {{New Order}} at the bottom of the article (after external links but before the category links). Also feel free to make any changes to the template, as long as they're not shit. SaltyWater 10:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

FAC number template

This actually goes under Factory Records, but i thought i 'd put it here also: I made a simple template for listing FAC numbers. I don't know how useful it is, but if anyone wants to use it, write {{FACnumber | FAC=foo}}, where foo is the full FAC number, like "FAC 123". It's a full-width template, so i suggest putting it near the bottom of the page. Improvements are welcome. Or, if it feels silly, remove it... // S4ndp4pper 20060603 17.16 UTC+1

Here's an example:

{{FACnumber
| FAC           = FAC 73
| Title         = Blue Monday (12", 1983 )
| PrevNum       = 72
| PrevLink      = I Need Someone Tonight
| NextNum       = 73
| NextLink      = Another Setting
}}

Interesting idea. Might be better if it was smaller, and floats on the right. It would always be useful to have a "previous" and "next" link and room for the title of the release/object. SaltyWater 16:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool! I have some comments, they are on the template's talk page.

Media samples

I know we're already a bit heavy on the auld media samples, but I think one of Regret wouldn't be out of place for this and its article. As their only song to top the US rock *and* dance charts, its a damn good example of the crossover that is in much of their work. Here To Stay is similarly suited (and indeed a personal favourite of mine), but Regret did better commercially. I'll cook one up if nobody else minds. --Kiand 19:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been hoping someone would add "Regret". WesleyDodds 04:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

KUDOS...

TO WHOEVER GOT THOSE ALBUM COVERS, ONE OF MY FAVORITE BANDS!

"Turn" at Articles for deletion

I'm nominating Turn (song) for deletion; see here. Absolutely nothing is happening, and there seems to be no possible commercial impetus left to release it now. –Unint 02:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it should stay. The song appeared on 'singles' (as a new edit), and a video was released. Its a valid article. The only thing that should be changed is that it was not released. -negative1

You'll want to take that to the AfD page itself. Also have a look at the developing notability guidelines: Wikipedia:Notability (songs). Non-single song articles are generally held in low regard. (And AFAIK the video was never used for actual promotion.) –Unint 17:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

They also won an award for lifetime achievment in 2005 in the "Dance Music awards"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQOB8ujSSz0

Does anyone know where I can find a better place to cite from, I just found this randomly while looking at you tube.

Murder

A not too distant cousin of 'Ecstasy' from Power Corruption & Lies? I can honestly say that it sounds nothing like it in my opinion. Murder is a largely guitar/drums effort whilst Ecstasy in an all-out electronic dance track.

Coming from the viewpoint of mood rather than style - they were both fairly morose tracks - but, in fairness to you, it is a tenuous connection that has been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddie2512 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?

Some of the descriptions of the music seem to be outside NPOV.

Frente

If you're going to mention Orgy, you have to mention Frente as well. Andrewhime 08:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, seing they covered Bizare Love Triange.

Serious NPOV problems

For example, "Brotherhood" also features the band at their most ably human and sensitive in 'All Day Long', a concise tale of child abuse of which Bernard Sumner can be rightly proud;

The sections on the albums shouldn't read like album reviews. Caleb462 19:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Guilty as charged - apologies for a subjective rather than objective post. (Alex)

Genre changes

Why were the links to 'techno', 'house' and PARTICULARLY 'alternative dance' removed? Anyone who denies that New Order have produced a number of house records clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. They are one of the most important acts in the history of dance music, yet all links to it have been removed. If House and Alternative Dance are removed, then so should New Wave be... they've produced far more tracks in the house style than they have 'New Wave'... I associate that term with bands like Duran Duran, NOT New Order. User:DShamen 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Power, Corruption & Lies back cover

'Ello, I got bored this weekend and decided to create a high-resolution version of the "Power, Corruption & Lies" back-cover in Illustrator. I also added a legend so it makes more sense when decoding the coloured messages on the sides of the albums. I released it as public domain and it can be found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:New_Order_Decoder.gif

I can also upload a version without the legend, but I think a scan of the original would be better in this case.

Blackbox 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So New Order are not officially split?

This'll be one to watch for new developments. Perhaps Peter Hook will quit, but this doesn't necessarily spell the end of the band.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that this could be slightly confusuing for the reader though. I mean this in the sense that the page 2007 in music says they are offically disbanding. There is also a source to prove this. Therefore I think that we should edit one of the two pages or the reader may become confused. Thundermaster367 13:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the matter will be solved in courts. Bernard and Stephen haven't regrouped as New Order yet. If and when they do, we'll see if Hook will take any course of action. The band did release a posthumous live DVD from their 2006 tour. So they did seem to agree on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.29.92.249 (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hook will return when he realises Freebass is a pretty silly idea - --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sumner, Cunningham and Morris have formed a new band called Bad Lieutenant, and all the news articles I've read about the project say that they are former members of New Order. So they have effectively dissolved, but are keeping the promise made while in New Order that when one member leaves, the group changes their name. I've added to the Years Active a reference stating that they are pretty much inactive now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.141.171 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NewOrderReading1998.jpg

Image:NewOrderReading1998.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NewOrderLowlifeCover.jpg

Image:NewOrderLowlifeCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NewOrderGetReadyCover.jpg

Image:NewOrderGetReadyCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NewOrderBrotherhoodCover.jpg

Image:NewOrderBrotherhoodCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lyric question:

Is there any sourcing for the repeated use of the phrase 'You just can't believe'? I've noticed it's in at least three or four songs. Is it a phrase taht just caught their ear nicely, pure coincidence, or a literary reference of a sort? It's in Love Vigilantes, Confusion, and a few others. If there's some sort of allusion or literary thing going on there, it might make interesting reading regarding their lyrical composition, if not, then whatever. ThuranX 18:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Neworder-lowlifeimages.jpg

Image:Neworder-lowlifeimages.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Is An / Are An?

On the 15th I made Revision 251920692, changing "New Order are an" to "New Order is an". It was reverted back to "are an", claiming In British English "New Order are..."). So wait... are we, as Wikipedians, writing these articles in British English, American English or just English? If we're writing it in British English, why are there plenty of American English terms and usages in this article? If we're gonna switch "is an" back to "are an", why not remove every other piece of American English? If instead we're writing this article in "English" (with neither focus on British or American version), why bother switching it back claiming British English reasons? .... Ah, symantics. -- 66.92.0.62 (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:ENGVAR we should use the version of English to which the topic of the article has strong ties. So as New Order are a British band, then British English is used. --JD554 (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Group noun#Metonymic merging of grammatical number (second paragraph), the singular "is" is correct when the group is acting as a single unit (which would be the case here), in both American and British English. Switching the verb in the first sentence of articles from singular to plural (whilst ignoring the verbs in the rest of the article), in order to make them seem more "British," but in violation of notional agreement, strikes me as pure nonsense and poor grammar.

New Order is a British band. -- Foetusized (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's quite correct. The thing with bands, is that that they are rarely thought of as a single unit but usually as a collection of the members. Hence the plural. --JD554 (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

When members of a band are playing music together, which is how I usually think of bands, I consider them to be a single unit. I don't think this view is as rare as you want it to be -- Foetusized (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant rarely in British English. --JD554 (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This particular Englishman considers that New Order is an English band but New Order are English. The Eurythmics is an English band. The Eurythmics are English. Longwayround (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

See American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement. You are entitled to your opinion, but lets please stick with convention.--Michig (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the link you just gave, his opinion is correct. Singular or plural in British English depends upon context. "Oliver's Army are on their way / Oliver's Army is here to stay" -- Foetusized (talk) 19:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"BrE: The Clash are a well-known band".--Michig (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Having looked through American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement and its discussion and archives, I see nothing that supports Michig's point of view except for the above quote. Longwayround (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This stupid and pointless fight over verb tense needs to extend beyond the first sentence. If it is so damn important that 'New Order' always take a plural verb in spite of notional agreement, then fix the whole article instead of just edit warring over the third word of the article. I just revised the lead with regard to was/were and has/have, but I'm sure there's more to fix farther into the article. Someone who has been arguing the case for plural verbs would probably do a better job of that than a Yank like me, who thinks the singular sounds fine and is correct -- Foetusized (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Back The Bus Up

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm down with alternative dance and all, but considering the alternatives for the coveted parentheses-less (lol phrase), specifically New Order (political system), what was the rationale to having this band as the, so to speak, "main" article of the phrase New Order? Was there a discussion for this I missed?  Aar  ►  01:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: Article stats for New Order[1] in April are over 1000 times greater than New Order (political system)[2]; the band's article has over 800 incoming links from other articles[3] whereas the politics article has 28[4]; and a google search for "new order" shows the band as the main topic[5]. --JD554 (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Date of photo needed

The photo in the infobox needs a date. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Per the photo's Flickr page, 23 January 2007 -- Foetusized (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

New Order's influence

I don't know if it's appropriate but I think a list of bands directly influenced by New Order would be an interesting adjunct to this page. There are numerous (and citable) examples of bands influenced by the band's sound, philosophy and attitude - Radiohead, Orbital, Hot Chip, The Chemical Brothers, Belle & Sebastian, The Charlatans, The Beloved, Digitalism, Moby, The Killers, Mylo....and on and on and on. PerfectKiss 02:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smatape (talk • contribs)

Martin Hannett / New york and Electro

It's actually stated as a matter of fact finally.... "their immersion in the New York City club scene of the early 1980s introduced them to dance music." no single person or band is genius, After the American/N.American Joy Division tour never happened, they still went ahead later as New Order to New York, where they took binders full of notes of the funk/electro scene that was happening in new york clubs at the time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.151.180 (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What was written after I mentions this seems to sway the idea that they had to go to go else where to develop the style that became their signature. If anything, the person who gave them their style was Martin Hannett, who showed them how to use mixing boards and produce their own music

When they on tour in New York, they were influenced by the Electro sounds they heard.

I originally pointed to the connection to new york and electro/funk . First of all I dont hear Latin Freestyle in the early and mid 80's. I sort of jokingly said they made binders full of notes.

1. They didn't time to "emerse themselves. They went on tour and they visited some clubs after their gigs.

2. - Joy division/ Martin Hannett was highy original that's why they were praised right from the beginning. While they were punks, they stood by Hannett's extreme prodding of incorporating electronics in their first album, something people who made punk style music did not do. they thought of themselves as punks.

3. Joy Division and early New Order sound had a very industrial aspect to it, mirroring the city itself a once heavy 18th century industrial city.

4. By 2nd Joy Division album "Closer" there were song on that album that were already highly synthetic...just electronics, no guitars.--Starbwoy (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

About the pages for each single

There's a lot of original research all over them. The Ceremony article implies that the original version sounds superior production wise to the second version (certainly not the standard opinion. The reason why the band re-did it is fairly obvious.) Procession goes on about some "pop optimism" overcoming the gloom, giving the track a "mixed message" (no, not really...but that's just my opinion.) Both versions of Temptation have "structure", it's not an abstract ambient or noise piece...

And then you have the multitude of no-name bands and performers littering the pages for doing a cover or remixing the songs. Only the official remixes, like the Shep Pettibone Bizarre Love Triangle and True Faith, should be included. Cover versions should be avoided altogether, leave them to the pages of the artists who did them. JonasEB (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

House and new wave

I don't understand why certain editors are so adamant about keeping "house" and "New Wave" out of the genre description. I've added it a few times and it was removed. New Order has recorded plenty of house and new wave. Temptation, Everything's Gone Green, Blue Monday (their most famous song) are all new wave singles. Low-Life is a New Wave album. Power Corruption & Lies is a New Wave album. Round & Round, Spooky, Fine Time, Run, World (The Price of Love) are all house singles. Most of Technique and Republic are composed of house music. These aren't just one or two songs. New Order composed a significant amount of house and new wave to be classified under that genre. I'm restoring it (again) as I feel this is enough evidence for their classification. 75.85.53.109 (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about the house music label; I don't know enough about the genre to have an opinion either way.

I believe the new wave genre label is appropriate.

Editors have pointed to new wave's British definition as being a commercially-viable style of punk rock and argued that no British person in the 80s would have considered the new wave, but I don't see how this should matter for their current genre classification. the Wikipedia article for the genre itself describes how critical consensus shifted to use new wave as an umbrella term for the myriad of punk-influenced styles of popular music that arose in the 1980s, including alternative dance and synth-pop. If that's the case, why should we stick religiously to the original definition some forty years onwards?

The fact is that definitions are amorphous, subjective and constantly changing with time. My favorite example is grunge music; pretty much every leading grunge band, from Nirvana to Soundgarden, repudiated the label. Despite this, modern journalists and fans classify them as grunge because they shared the same influences, played on the same labels, and exchanged members and musical ideas with each other. Whether or not the artist or people from a specific time period considered a genre label to be appropriate doesn't matter because genres are simply a way of reflecting our modern-day perception of musical history. In the present musical consciousness, New Order is so closely intertwined with new wave in the sense of an artsy, commercially viable synth-pop/pop rock style with punk sensibilities that to argue otherwise feels disingenuous. KevindeAmsterdam (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Am I right in assuming you're American and using 'new wave' in its American meaning? In the UK New Order are not referred to as 'New Wave' which in a UK context means basically a late 70s more commercial brand of punk. The Buzzcocks were New Wave but not New Order and certainly not in the mid 80s when they were using synths heavily. Check out the wikipedia page on New Wave for more on the UK/US usage of thid term. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the inclusion of New Wave. However, New Order may have produced house-influenced music, but not house music itself. Also note that the band isn't listed at List of house music artists, not through omission, but because they don't belong there. The article mentions the acid house influence, which is sufficient and accurate -- Foetusized (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. They made house-influenced music but they didn't make house records. --Michig (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Post-Punk is the correct label for early New Order. New Wave is just a catch-all for bands of that era that doesn't describe anything. JonasEB (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

How is post-punk not pretty catch-all in it's own right? Much like "New Wave", it was coined to describe 1st wave punk evolved, but diversely influenced music. I do suppose "post-punk" tends to be differed for bands "darker" or less commercial, or perhaps is even more of a timeline distinction--meant more to give a distinct identity to bands coming in around/after the 1980-ish demise of UK's original Punk/New Wave explosion. The term doesn't seem very sound-oriented though.

Still, more important on this site is whether New Order's New Wave ties can be documented. I wouldn't exactly say that's difficult, especially judging by the quick hint I even got when a Google search gave me "New Order New Wave" as a drop-down result. I can also judge this by the numerous "New Wave best of" lists I can recall which included something from the band. Let's face it, they've always been a pretty important name in the genre (even if it's more to their American audience, for whom they're a defining band. It counts here.). Excluding the genre here seems a little ridiculous. Theburning25 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no mention of New Wave in the body of the article, just in the infobox where you have added it. As I said above, I have no issue with New Order being categorized as New Wave, but I think that it ought to be mentioned in the body of the article instead of just the infobox. -- Foetusized (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If you check technique and republic you’ll see it says house not House-influenced new wave, if you check the singles during that period they say house or acid house and once again not House-influenced new wave, maybe you guys could use wikipedia once in a while. 188.222.41.105 (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I just used Wikipedia and removed a bunch of incorrect mentions of "house" and "acid house" from the articles of New Order songs and albums. Thanks -- Foetusized (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

that's called original research, hopefully someone will change it back, oh, and block you from wikipedia. 188.222.41.105 (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

i point it your flaw and rather than admit defeat you just edit out every mention of house and acid house, real mature 188.222.41.105 (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what original research is on Wikipedia. Come up with some citations from reliable sources to support your position that New Order performed house music, not just incorporating house ideas into their alternative dance music, and don't edit these articles until you can add those citations to the articles. You didn't point out my flaw; you pointed out a flaw in all of these articles, which I then fixed. Thanks -- Foetusized (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Guess your right, sorry about that. 188.222.41.105 (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

and your welcome 188.222.41.105 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Allmusic lists house music under New Order, and you'll find that Republic and Technique are also listed as such. I fail to see them as New Wave (certainly not since the mid-80s anyway) and most certainly not post-punk bar the first two albums, but I don't persist in removing links to them. DShamen 16:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of New wave was very poppy. Thats why they were always called "post punk" until the term disappeared in the early 90's. they were originally punks who were branded "post punk" right at the beginning. Its was was Joy Division with a a new sound and additional member--Starbwoy (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

New Wave became an American term...that became highly overused It became a catch all phrase for everything and anything that sounded a bit different in the U.S. It was marketing term. It was most used in U.S, it was used less in Canada, and mostly not at all every where else--Starbwoy (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

New Order are not 100% house at ALL. They are a true synthpop and alternative dance group. Thanks!

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Who said that they were "100%" house? No one. Just as they aren't 100% "synthpop" or even "alternative dance" (which is one of the best ways to describe what they do along with alternative rock in my opinion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.117.186 (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Myxomatosis57: seems this debate has been going on awhile. Multiple first and third party sources agree that New Order has produced multiple songs spanning multiple albums which are best described or only describable as "house" or "acid house" (first and foremost being Fine Time). Here's another just for good measure: The Guardian Music on New Order: Music Complete: "It boasts a full-on, stabbing piano house track, People On the High Line". House is a genre New Order has produced a number of songs in spanning decades. Your response to individual citations has been one song here, another song there doesn't make New Order a "house band". I think you're missing the forest for the trees, and should also probably go look up what "house band" actually means before having an opinion. Tarcieri (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Some of singles/songs and albums are indeed described as house. However, wouldn't it be WP:SYNTH to call New Order a "house music act" (That's obviously what I was referring to by "house band," why this patronizing attitude?) just based on a few songs (Fine Time, People on the Line as you've mentioned, would be great if you provided those sources) and a single studio album (Technique) since we would be reaching a conclusion regarding the band's full output? Do we have any actual sources that actually refer to the band as house? Also wouldn't it be more convenient to discuss the house genre in the prose while we keep the sourced and more encompassing electronica in the infobox? That would be better than forcing every single electronic dance music genre they've experimented with to there. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You concur some of singles/songs and albums are indeed described as "house" by multiple first-party sources. If there are indeed multiple first-party sources which confirm that there are both multiple songs and an entire album which can be classified as "house", how is that insufficient evidence that "house" is *one* of the *many* generes that New Order has been active in? (and perhaps most notably, active in semi-recently with albums like Music Complete)

It seems there are many sources which confirm that house is a genre that New Order has been highly-active in. It seems you have a higher bar than multiple songs or indeed an entire album: can you please show me where it is specifically stated in Wikipedia policy that this is insufficient evidence? It seems you argue that no first-party source, describing the band in general, has ever said that in particular because it is not the band's **principal** genere, but if that's the case, I'd argue that 99% of the pages about a music group are both out-of-whatever-policy and simultaneously accurate, because there are first-party sources that a subset of their music belongs to that particular genre. Regarding the comment "That's obviously what I was referring to by 'house band,' why this patronizing attitude?" well if you went to the page for house band you would see the "Not to be confused with House music" note which I'm pretty sure has existed since before either of us interacted and there's a reason for that: this is terminology no house music fan, and anyone attempting to curate a history of what bands are-or-are-not house music would ever use, period. You are being excessively pushy with editorial opinions about that which you simply have no clue about. Can you please educate yourself on all of these topics so you have an informed opinion before debating?

For clarity while it seems New Order's experiments in House music don't meet some ill-defined bar I've never personally expressed in Wikipedia's policy, they owned The Haçienda which is widely regarded as one of the most important venues in the history of house music. They made house songs. They made an album which is universally regarded as being seeped in acid house, with a track 1 which can only be described as "acid house" as its primary genre. How can you seriously argue this is insufficient to list house as one of the many genres New Order was active in? Tarcieri (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur with adding "house" to the genres. A lot of Technique can fairly be described as house. The band specifically wanted to make Balearic house. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Clarification

I'm translating this page for the Italian wiki an I need an clarification for understand the meaning of reflected the label's aesthetic of doing whatever the relevant parties wanted to do. Can someone help me? --Asdino (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New Order (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 20:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Song Titles

• In some cases, songs appear to have had their titles derived from lines in other songs.

I'm not sure that's what's happening, as:

• the phrase "This time of night" appears in the song "As It Is When It Was" on Brotherhood but is the title of a song on Low-Life

Low-Life came out in 1985, Brotherhood in 1986.

• and "Face Up" from Low-Life features the phrase "In a lonely place", the title of the B-side to "Ceremony".

Low-Life came out in 1985, Ceremony was released way back in 1981.

• Also, the track "Chemical" from the 1993 album Republic featured the word brotherhood, which was the name of the 1986 album.

Again, the title was supposedly inspired by a song that was released years later.

Maybe the idea behind all this is that New Order re-use certain "themes", although -with the exception of In A Lonely Place- the terms in question are way too common to make a case, imo. At any rate, I doubt that any of those titles was inspired by songs that were released a year (or years) later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumorian (talk • contribs) 16:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative rock

In many Wikipedia articles of the genre of their albums/singles are also credited as alternative rock. I think it should also be listed as a main genre.Myxomatosis75 (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur, much of the first half of Brotherhood and a lot of Technique would definitely qualify as alternative rock.

Would also like to add that whoever seems to think that Gillian Gilbert is the bands sole keyboardist needs to watch a few more live performances. It's quite clear that Stephen Morris and Phil Cunningham play plenty of live keyboards at gigs, and Bernard Sumner has also been known to in numerous gigs. Gillian wasn't in the band for a few years, who was playing the keyboards then? What about Republic, which was full of keyboards? Are people suggesting that one person wrote all of those parts and the other three stood around doing nothing? In the studio, it's well known that all of the group (although mostly Bernard Sumner) contributed keyboard/synth parts, so it doesn't qualify to only have Gillian as a keyboardist there either - and this is in no way being detrimental to her as a musician - just pointing out the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.248.45 (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 July 2014

Add in the biography section "Reunion with new line-up, Lost Sirens: 2011–present":

In July, the group toured North America, where they debuted the song "Plastic".

Thanks for your consideration. AngusWOOF (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Done Sorry for the long wait. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 18:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 August 2014

it's just too many genres,someone change it

201.92.31.94 (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

First off, the genre of the band should follow the WP:V guideline: there should be sources cited to say that the band has one or more genres. These will be from WP:Reliable sources that say what the band is overall. Second, what we put in the band's genre parameter is not a collection of every genre that they ever recorded or performed. The band's overall genres will be published in reliable sources, which will be cited. The genres will not automatically come from the album articles or the song articles. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The band is recognized as the first alternative dance group according to Allmusic. The band is also classified as synthpop ([6], [7], [8]), post-punk ([9], [10]), new wave ([11]), and dance-rock ([12], [13])

Already knew the genres except electronica. THANKS!!! JG Malmsimp (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Also the original infobox picture of the article ( 2005-06-11 New Order live.jpg ) and the caption (New Order performing at Southside Festival in Neuhausen ob Eck, Germany in 2005) were removed just before the protection. It'd be really great if these were restored. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I've lowered the protection level to semi-protection, so the autoconfirmed users here should now be able to edit it. Admins are allowed to use semi-protection for edit warring between registered users and multiple IPs, because the IPs would have an unfair advantage with respect to our edit warring rules - see Wikipedia:Protection policy#Guidance for administrators #3. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be the closest we ever got to four genres (the infobox instructions at Template:Infobox musical artist tell us that the maximum number of listed genres is four), and since there are now seven one of these must go (along with the two others added since). With no objections, I will remove 'new wave', both for the reasons I've stated below and because the source now provided is a dead link. Jinglyjangle (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Reply to Myxomatosis57: There are NO SOURCES where New Order have ELECTRONICA in them. You said you were working on the genre and now I can't find any sources. PLEASE HELP ME. PLEASE!!!!!!!

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014

61.24.10.19 (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Allmusic

since when did All music became the end all of information on bands. Most of the writers dont really know more than you and me, and also just research. just because its written on on a music blog or all music does that mean all thier inforamtion is right . For older bands ...did they buy the music at the time, or went to the concerts?Starbwoy (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

New picture

Seeing as Hooky's no longer with the band, and Gillian's returned, isn't it time for a new picture?

Yes, I have put up a new image on the main article.

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The New Order vandal

As some of the editors dealing with New Order- and 808 State-related articles may know, these are continuously vandalized by a static IP vandal actively since July (with first edits presumably being in March). The articles have been protected for numerous times and vandalism persists each time the protection expires. This situation urgently needs a higher level of administrative intervention; IPs used by the vandal are yet to be blocked.

I've previously reported the vandal to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and been considering reporting him/her to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse but I don't think he/she meets the criteria for now. What else can be done except reverting and protecting the articles? Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If we can find that the person has been blocked I think we can establish an LTA case purely because the disruption is so egregious over a long period. Until he's blocked we just have to keep asking for protection. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the reason why he is not blocked (or even properly warned) is that he has been using different IPs for nearly each edit. One of the IPs was banned previously, but it was just temporary. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I will ignore the guideline at WP:LTA and compose a case page against him. I think protection of the wiki comes before dotting every 'i'. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to add relevant information to the new case page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/New Order vandal. Newly discovered IPs should be listed there, and they can be tagged in this manner to make it clear to others the serious nature of the violation. Binksternet (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of those are from 126.0.0.0/8, an enormous range that belongs to a single entity; a Japanese bank that apparently provides ISP services. I can't find any information about subnet assignments within that range. However, long-term range blocks are possible if logical groupings or clusters can be identified in that list. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE!

The New Order vandal from Japan has been rangeblocked by another administrator for 1 month from February 9. Cheers JG Malmsimp (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

HELP!!!

I CAN'T FIND ANY SOURCES WHICH HAVE ELECTRONICA ON NEW ORDER. PLEASE HELP!!!!

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Song Titles section

Removing the following from the article. The cleanup tag expresses well the problems with it. Bacchiad (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Many New Order song titles have nothing to do with the song. In some cases, song titles appear as lyrics in other songs. For example, the phrase "This time of night" appears in the song "As It Is When It Was" on Brotherhood but is the title of a song on Low-Life, and "Face Up" from Low-Life features the phrase "In a lonely place", the title of the B-side to "Ceremony". Also, the track "Chemical" from the 1993 album Republic featured the word "brotherhood", which was the name of the 1986 album.

Other song titles were taken from the titles of old movies such as Thieves Like Us and Cries and Whispers, and the film Whistle Down the Wind is mentioned in the lyrics of "Vanishing Point" on the 1989 album Technique, an album which is otherwise notable for not including any of its song title phrases in the lyrics of any of the nine tracks, although the phrase "Fine Time" does appear in Joy Division's song "Transmission".

This practice appears to have been discontinued after the 1980s given that on Republic several songs contain their titles (e.g. "Regret", "Ruined in a Day", "Special", "Young Offender"), and on Get Ready most song lyrics contain their titles except "Slow Jam", "Close Range" and "Run Wild". Similarly, the songs on Waiting for the Sirens' Call contain their titles with the exception of "Who's Joe", "Krafty" and "Guilt Is a Useless Emotion".

Thanks for removing this stuff. I don't think any of it is salvageable. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This sounds like WP:SYNTH (sic) to me. Notes from RS'es about how they choose their song titles and lyrics can go in the album or song articles. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

PROTECTION NEARLY OVER!!!!!

With protection of New Order's article expiring on Wednesday, Myxomatosis57, Binksternet and I are fearing on March 9 that the NEW ORDER VANDAL from Japan will be returning to make EXTREME VANDALISM on most of New Order & 808 State articles. Can we have indefinite semi protection on both the bands, albums and musicians please?

THANKS A MILLION

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE!!: Protection on New Order will expire in 12 HOURS from now. :(

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 11:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

1 wrong edit from the New Order vandal from Monday = indefinite semi-protection

THANKS

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)